Been wondering about this from a "how much time should I put into a piece? When is it ready for publishing?"
What I got from reading this is you want to treat substack pieces like extra long tweets/ sketch-essays
Which makes sense - we all have our own constraints and as long as the piece comes out at a level we are happy with it, it's "good"
The challenge is choosing our own constraints that we are (a) happy with (b) meets our internal standards (ego, taste, quality bar) (c) actually gets published without ignoring other commitments/projects
When you say there was a time in your early marketing career where you iterated by reading/reworking your posts to get to a place where you could write low-effort posts that worked, what did you observe and how did you get it to a bunch of transmissible instructions for other writers? Were you writing about a specific bunch of topics? (Any blog post or Twitter thread where you documented this?)
I stumbled across this idea of Lamarckian vs Weismannian evolution in learning and teaching ideas: Lamarckian transmission is learning by imitating, which is low-fidelity but can lead to more creative mutation. Weismannian transmission is learning by following a bunch of instructions, high-fidelity with less scope for originality. Getting a process to some percentage Weismannian, some percentage Lamarckian seems like what makes it consistent and teachable, what do you think?
Been wondering about this from a "how much time should I put into a piece? When is it ready for publishing?"
What I got from reading this is you want to treat substack pieces like extra long tweets/ sketch-essays
Which makes sense - we all have our own constraints and as long as the piece comes out at a level we are happy with it, it's "good"
The challenge is choosing our own constraints that we are (a) happy with (b) meets our internal standards (ego, taste, quality bar) (c) actually gets published without ignoring other commitments/projects
Sketchbook performance art is exactly how I feel it is too but I didn’t have the words to quite describe it
❤️🔥🙏🏾 thrilled to hear it!
When you say there was a time in your early marketing career where you iterated by reading/reworking your posts to get to a place where you could write low-effort posts that worked, what did you observe and how did you get it to a bunch of transmissible instructions for other writers? Were you writing about a specific bunch of topics? (Any blog post or Twitter thread where you documented this?)
I stumbled across this idea of Lamarckian vs Weismannian evolution in learning and teaching ideas: Lamarckian transmission is learning by imitating, which is low-fidelity but can lead to more creative mutation. Weismannian transmission is learning by following a bunch of instructions, high-fidelity with less scope for originality. Getting a process to some percentage Weismannian, some percentage Lamarckian seems like what makes it consistent and teachable, what do you think?