About building an audience and making public contributions

The following is an excerpt from a private exchange. I am publishing it with the permission of my correspondent. Their identity remains private. The indented/quoted text is what I am replying to.

I’ve been reading your work and watching your videos and I’m struck by something you seem to have figured out that I’m struggling with. How do you share substantive ideas and connect with people who might benefit from them without getting caught up in the social media performance game?

I think it has to do with how I approach my creativity in general. I have learnt to tend to my needs, by allowing that which is within me to take form. Instead of forcing it to happen, I let it come about organically. This is why the following are true:

I sometimes go for weeks without publishing a new video. If I am not feeling it, then it is not the right moment for it. It will not be authentic.
The topics I cover are not limited to a specific target audience. One day I will write about Emacs, for example, and the other I will produce an article about life in the mountains and then another about some political ideas. I mean, even if there is an audience for such intersections, it must be tiny.
I follow my “alla prima” method of creativity and trust in myself to perform well enough: I am expressing what is ready to be elucidated and am interested in capturing my authentic self in the moment. Sure, there is value in works that are refined over time (e.g. the free software I develop), but those are not a snapshot of myself. When I write a journal entry or do a video, I want to both elaborate on the substantive point and test how I am doing it in the moment.

If I was into the performative game, I would be operating in terms of maximising my impact in pursuit of profits. This would include, among others, (i) editing my videos, (ii) using catchy thumbnails, (iii) relying on clickbait, (iv) generally manipulating people into paying attention to me, and (v) promoting my content on Reddit and social media. To be clear, I am not against people who do that—these are the ways the game is played. I simply do not care about playing that game myself. I find it relaxing to be myself and stressful to pretend to be another.

Finally, the performance game is also about appearing as an authority in the given field. Whereas I make it clear that I am nothing of the sort. For example, in my “about me” page on my website I clearly note that I only have a Bachelor’s degree. Or, for my coding endeavours, I tell people that I am not a professional programmer and have not studied computer science or related disciplines. In short, I am just a guy in the mountains who speaks his mind: take it for what it is and then think for yourself. If you spot my mistakes, that is great: you will help me become aware of them and you are already thinking independently.

Your path from politics to the mountains resonates with me. I’m someone who’s always been more comfortable as a lurker in online spaces, partly due to anxiety around the performative aspects of social platforms. Even in seemingly welcoming spaces like open-source communities, I’ve always found it too intimidating to ask questions (if you have a problem, search first before asking) or contribute, due to feeling like I may not be competent enough yet to contribute anything substantial.

The social anxiety you mention can be a liability though consider how it puts you in a tough spot where you have an incentive to act. Instead of asking a question, you may choose to do more research about it and come up with your own solution. Sure, this is the hard way and it can be frustrating as results do not come about quickly. Though it can be rewarding long-term as you gain a deeper insight into the subject and are empowered to make connections that would otherwise not be possible.

What I have learnt about what we may consider “character flaws”, or which anyway are seen as weaknesses by the general public, is that they can actually be strong points or lead to the formation of benign qualities. Put differently, not all hope is lost. It is a matter of trying in earnest and of not having a defeatist attitude. Tell yourself that you are not good enough only after you have tried to the best of your abilities. Then your self-assessment is fair and then you will already be more lenient with yourself because you know you did not cheat.

The part about being “competent enough” is a trap. It only matters if you choose to brand yourself as the foremost expert in the field. Otherwise, you are contributing what is congruent with your level (assuming you are not trying to deceive people). In the case of the Emacs community, for example, you may have a blog where you describe what you are learning by using Emacs, the parts you like and those you do not like. This is no longer about whether you are “competent enough” but how genuine your human side is. Of course, you can still be highly informative in whatever it is you are working on.

Recently, I wrote a lengthy analysis applying systems thinking to AI discourse - trying to move beyond the usual utopia/dystopia binary that dominates these discussions - but I’m finding the typical channels for sharing this kind of work like Reddit or Hacker News either inaccessible or deeply misaligned with how I prefer to engage.

All fora are tricky because of a number of factors that are unrelated to the quality of your contribution. For example, you may write something constructive but your timing is wrong because some company released their new product and now everyone is riding the hype train.

Here is what I remember of a joke that a friend once shared about Facebook. I think it captures the essence of many online experiences:

You spend a couple of hours thinking of something deep to expound on. Then you take care to write it as best you can. You publish it, expecting an exchange of profound thoughts. A few hours later, you check back in anticipation of the flood of notifications you have received. But there is nothing of substance. You have received one “like” from your mother and a “fuck off, mate, let’s go for drinks” response from your best friend. Disappointed as you are, you start scrolling aimlessly at your feed. As you go past the posts and ads, you notice an entry from the hottie of your neighbourhood that was sent 5 minutes ago. “I am drinking coffee on my balcony 🙃” is the message. To your astonishment, you notice right below 5000 likes, 3000 comments, and 2 Champions League trophies!

The point is to know what you are likely to get on these platforms. Focus on your work. You will eventually discover like-minded people who will be keen on sharing their passion with you. Even if you get exposure on social media or some forum, keep in mind that it is short-lived. What will keep people around for longer is the quality of your work. “Quality” may be about how informative or intriguing the content is or how authentic you are. It depends on the subject.

You’ve built quite a collection of substantial entries and genuine influence through the work itself, without needing to become a social media performer. That approach feels much more authentic to me than the typical “build an audience first” advice. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on how someone can contribute meaningfully to public discourse while staying true to their own values and communication style?

I have been publishing since February of 2011. The topics and focus have changed over the years, reflecting my evolution. Even my writing style is different. What has remained constant is my outlook. I see this as a solitary endeavour. If there is at least one person out there who finds my publications and learns something from them, it is a bonus. I am happy, but I still did what I did out of an inner need: to speak my mind in earnest.

Early on, I realised that my friends/classmates were not necessarily interested in the same things I was and did not have the enthusiasm for writing/reading that I had/have. It is why I started to only write as a means of expressing myself. When I decided to do videos, I did it because I wanted to keep practising my English skills. Maybe I should do it with French at some point, but it is hard to have a multilingual website.

I was doing “alla prima” early on, though I was not consistent with it. Some publications took me more than one sitting. The last several years, maybe since pre-Covid, have been especially easy in this regard. I write the article in one go or record the video and just send it.

Perhaps there is merit to the idea of building an audience at the outset. It all comes down to what your priorities are and what you are trying to achieve. If, for instance, you are bent on monetising your platform, then you must play the game we covered earlier. Otherwise you simply do your thing and allow things to happen organically.

Will the organic approach guarantee results? No, but why would that be relevant given the intent behind it? If you are publishing as a means of self-exploration, then you already get what you ask for. Everything else is extra.

Not targeting an audience guarantees that you remain true to yourself throughout the stages of your intellectual development. Otherwise, you have a strong incentive to role play and to ultimately sell what you think people are demanding.

As someone who mostly acquired my skills on my own, this resonates heavily with me. Feeling alienated from school, I found reprieve in working with technology and finding my own niche skills. I had always valued experience over output, and believe that this is what truly matters for me.

It is good to know what works for you and what does not. This way you focus on the things that appeal to you and become good at them. Doing it your own way also means that you will be somewhat unorthodox in at least some of your methods, which sometimes is what gives that special quality to your work. Formal qualifications are important, though they can be overrated.

Perhaps, because of me being young and inexperienced, I am also drawn to seeing my work in the lens of how it could help people and what people will see me as. After all, why do we write and create if not to show ourselves to the world, to be understood? Of course, this does not necessarily have to be in conflict with my journey of improvement and self-reflection. But I realize the importance of balancing both, and how easy it is to fall on either side.

You are right: there is no conflict here. The motivation to help others is strong and will give you the impetus you need to press on with your interests. Besides, teaching others involves learning as well. Even somebody who knows nothing about a given topic will inevitably provide you with at least a new data point about how a beginner deals with the situation.

The key is to not expect that others will quickly line up to hear what you have to say. That can happen over time. In the meantime, you will need to show consistency and the commitment it entails.

It feels a bit lonely that these deep insights and interests lead to me feeling isolated from others, and it was quite disheartening to see active rejection because I was perceived as a new user with no credentials or expertise. The reason I created the article was because I wanted to see change happen in the world, and not even having the opportunity to share it makes me feel like I have failed.

It is disheartening to be dismissed for who you are rather than what you are saying, I know. And it will be lonely more often than not because there are not many out there who (i) stand at the same intersection you are on of current knowledge/ability and research orientation, while (ii) also knowing about you. The idea that “great minds think alike” may be true though it should come with the proviso “but they do not know about each other’s presence and are unlikely to meet early on.”

That granted, even such disheartening treatment has didactic value: it is not too bad. You learn how people behave out there sometimes, i.e. like a pack of wolves, and you understand that you will have to earn your place through sustained effort. The days of being cuddled and welcomed are long gone.

To use an analogy from my days playing football, when I was promoted to train with the men’s team, I was not treated as the boy I still was. No! I was given the adult treatment: strong challenges, hard tackles, and harsh language. I thus had to fight for my place and earn my keep. You think you are tough because you are a bit older and bigger? Let me show you what tenacity is!

This is not about being vindictive, but about building up tolerance for adversity. There are people out there who will be your friends or who, anyway, are well-meaning. Others will be nasty and combative. And everything in between. What you will realise though, which is the essence of sport, is that your fiercest competitor is actually your greatest colleague: by pushing you to your limits, they empower you to be the best version of yourself. In the absence of a challenge, we get complacent, sloppy, and ultimately ineffective.

Maybe those people are wrong in the way they rejected you: they can benefit from refining their communications skills. But ignore the means and focus on the salient point. They are still telling you in their unpleasant way how you have to build up your credibility, which you will do one step at a time by committing to the task long-term.

As for changing the world, you are already on the right path. You changed something about yourself. You took the time to do something you care about. Keep it up and observe how the world continues to evolve partly in response to your deeds.

But, in a way, I have still taken the time to work on something that I truly cherish. Feeling disappointed is me disregarding the effort I have put into this. I’ve taken the time to reflect and engage with the topic critically, which already puts me beyond the noise and violent hatred of many on the internet. I shouldn’t let something like that go to waste!

Well put! The work you do is worthwhile also because it has a compounding effect: the more you do it, the better you get at it. So even if a single case is not enough, the cumulative effect can be rewarding.