6 ms·

I couldnt get a lot out of this talk and havent read the book. But I do feel the theme of what he’s saying becoming a popular narrative lately. People are hun

I couldnt get a lot out of this talk and havent read the book. But I do feel the theme of what he’s saying becoming a popular narrative lately. People are hungry to provide themselves and others with purpose and meaning. It seems as though so many of us want to know what we’re doing will make a difference, in the short and the long term. Not just working for the sake of it, or competing blindly in what may be a zero sum game.

disqard 8y ago
The speaker's narrative style in this video has many depth-first branches, before he unwinds the stack and continues. This makes it a high-effort endeavor (for me) to stay focused on his message. After ~15 minutes, I gleaned these two points: 1. Creation is an essential part of being human 2. The way we create has fundamentally changed over the past half-century, and the consumer of a work now plays a non-trivial role in shaping the work. I wonder if the book has a similarly discursive style.
- majke 8y ago
  For me the highlight was the ~15:14 mark, building up on the the diving buddy example. First he mentions that creative process needs a buddy (in "pioneering conditions"): - buddy must be passionately curious - buddy needs to be kind Then he explains that all creators create in a cycle, and that long-term creation must be fun, since there is no quick payday. The cycle: - ideating - experimenting - exhibiting He explains that the exhibiting can (should?) be done to audiences that "get it" and are able to consume the content even in experimental form. This resonated for me. The most creative and long-term work I did was in this very cycle. I was able to produce things that were immediately consumed and the feedback loop was very quick. This allowed me to stay motivated and sustain "the creativity" for > 2 years. The obvious question is how to create this cycle artificially, and how to sustain it from an employer point of view. On the subject of motivation/meaning, it's worth noting "The nihilist's guide to meaning" https://meltingasphalt.com/a-nihilists-guide-to-meaning/ https://meltingasphalt.com/a-nihilists-guide-to-meaning/
  - majke 8y ago
    There is some relationship between motivation and enthusiasm. I think enthusiasm is the single most important thing. Naively, you could state that showing enthusiasm is an expression of internal motivation. But enthusiasm can be faked, while I'm not sure you can fake motivation. The remaining question is: is it possible to have motivation to do creative work without having an enthusiasm? (and of course, how to build both things consciously. Is convincing yourself to "doing meaningful work" exactly that?)
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  Interesting analogy about narrative style. I’m not deeply familiar with stack behavior but am very interested in narrative, so I want to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying that he goes into depth on one topic, and then moves into depth on another, and then at the end you have to piece the topics together yourself? What’s your preferred narrative style? To connect all the topics at a high-level in the beginning, and then go into depth on each? (Based on everyone’s comments I don’t think I’m going to spend time on this video, hence why I’m asking here if my interpretation of your comment is correct.)
  - disqard 8y ago
    I'll try and simplify: He would ideally say A, B, C, and D. Then descend into each part, so we know where he is going. Instead, he says A, A1, A1.a, A1.b, A1.b1, A1.b2, A1.c, A2, A3, A3.a, A3.b, A3.b1, A3.b1.i, A3.b1.ii, ... What should be a smooth narrative for a 30 minute talk about a book, becomes a series of asides, discursions, qualifiers, and more minutiae, which, while technically accurate, make it hard to stay engaged as a listener. Of course, I'm only a "YouTube listener". The average person physically in the audience that day might have substantially higher levels of commitment and focus on parsing his narrative.

disqard 8y ago

The speaker's narrative style in this video has many depth-first branches, before he unwinds the stack and continues. This makes it a high-effort endeavor (for me) to stay focused on his message. After ~15 minutes, I gleaned these two points: 1. Creation is an essential part of being human 2. The way we create has fundamentally changed over the past half-century, and the consumer of a work now plays a non-trivial role in shaping the work. I wonder if the book has a similarly discursive style.

majke 8y ago
For me the highlight was the ~15:14 mark, building up on the the diving buddy example. First he mentions that creative process needs a buddy (in "pioneering conditions"): - buddy must be passionately curious - buddy needs to be kind Then he explains that all creators create in a cycle, and that long-term creation must be fun, since there is no quick payday. The cycle: - ideating - experimenting - exhibiting He explains that the exhibiting can (should?) be done to audiences that "get it" and are able to consume the content even in experimental form. This resonated for me. The most creative and long-term work I did was in this very cycle. I was able to produce things that were immediately consumed and the feedback loop was very quick. This allowed me to stay motivated and sustain "the creativity" for > 2 years. The obvious question is how to create this cycle artificially, and how to sustain it from an employer point of view. On the subject of motivation/meaning, it's worth noting "The nihilist's guide to meaning" https://meltingasphalt.com/a-nihilists-guide-to-meaning/ https://meltingasphalt.com/a-nihilists-guide-to-meaning/
- majke 8y ago
  There is some relationship between motivation and enthusiasm. I think enthusiasm is the single most important thing. Naively, you could state that showing enthusiasm is an expression of internal motivation. But enthusiasm can be faked, while I'm not sure you can fake motivation. The remaining question is: is it possible to have motivation to do creative work without having an enthusiasm? (and of course, how to build both things consciously. Is convincing yourself to "doing meaningful work" exactly that?)
kaycebasques 8y ago
Interesting analogy about narrative style. I’m not deeply familiar with stack behavior but am very interested in narrative, so I want to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying that he goes into depth on one topic, and then moves into depth on another, and then at the end you have to piece the topics together yourself? What’s your preferred narrative style? To connect all the topics at a high-level in the beginning, and then go into depth on each? (Based on everyone’s comments I don’t think I’m going to spend time on this video, hence why I’m asking here if my interpretation of your comment is correct.)
- disqard 8y ago
  I'll try and simplify: He would ideally say A, B, C, and D. Then descend into each part, so we know where he is going. Instead, he says A, A1, A1.a, A1.b, A1.b1, A1.b2, A1.c, A2, A3, A3.a, A3.b, A3.b1, A3.b1.i, A3.b1.ii, ... What should be a smooth narrative for a 30 minute talk about a book, becomes a series of asides, discursions, qualifiers, and more minutiae, which, while technically accurate, make it hard to stay engaged as a listener. Of course, I'm only a "YouTube listener". The average person physically in the audience that day might have substantially higher levels of commitment and focus on parsing his narrative.