3 ms·

Consider this, there is a hypothetical "perfect youtuber lottery". To enter it, you must meet or exceed all the requirements you laid out, you then get a ticke

by throwaway2048 6y ago

Consider this, there is a hypothetical "perfect youtuber lottery". To enter it, you must meet or exceed all the requirements you laid out, you then get a ticket. Tickets are drawn, some small handful are winners. Everyone who won did all the perfect youtuber things, but beyond that the fact they were successful was entirely based on factors outside their control. Is this a reasonable approximation of reality? Maybe, it would certainly fit the mold of what makes a successful person in most other highly skewed areas of life where some very small percentage involved are identifiable as really successful like musicians, actors, authors, artists etc. The problem is that you don't even admit this as a possibility, just the standard refrain of work harder at it and those who fail clearly didn't work hard enough. Unless you define those who are successful as the only people who "did it all right", which is definitely a circular argument... Nobody is saying it doesn't take hard work, just don't expect hard work to be enough, and worse still, if any other areas where creative output is used as income are any indication, don't expect being very good, or even the best to be enough either (plenty of examples of musicians, authors and artists who changed history languishing in obscurity their whole lives)

tomhoward 6y ago
Not once have I used the words “hard work”. This whole discussion is in response to the claim that you can produce 3 pieces of _good content_ every week for 1-2 years and be good at promoting it, and that only 1/10 will succeed. I’m really saying this defies the definition of good content. I’m aware it can seem like a circular argument; I’m surprised people keep disputing what is a self-evident position. I don’t suggest everyone can do it. I do think most can probably do it eventually if it’s their passion and they choose to make it their top priority, but I’m aware that’s a separate debate that I don’t especially care to thrash out, as it’s not central to my point.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  The fact its a circular argument means that the premise is invalid as an inescapable consequence, its fundamentally a confusion of cause and effect.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    Re-reading the thread after a night's rest, it seems everyone was getting a bit confused about the main point, myself included. When seen as a simple circular argument like that, you're right, it's pointless. As I've said several times, the main point I was refuting is that an aspiring creator could create great content and promote it perfectly, consistently over several years, and still be at the mercy of a random chance of (according to the original commenter) 1/10 as to whether they succeed. I maintain that's just not how the world works. But I understand the issue you and others take with this is that someone could _try_ to do all the right things consistently for many years, but never develop to the point where they can make a career of it. I don't dispute that. I do think the skills required are far more learnable than, say, NBA-level basketball. But just how many more people can do it, or what any given individual's chances are, well of course we don't know. For any individual to make a judgement about whether it's worth giving it a try, it's like any other career decision, and making decisions about how to invest one's time is a fundamental life skill. But I always think it's a shame when someone who could have succeeded at a creative or entrepreneurial pursuit decides not to even try because they believe the falsehood that success is random, regardless of your own qualities or efforts.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  It's very similar to the very reasonable claim that if you put in seven _good_ practice sessions a week every week for five years and are good at deciding what to work on, you've got less than a 10% of getting into the NBA/Julliard/Hollywood A-list. Claiming that this defies the definition of good practice is essentially narrowing the definition of "good" so far that your original claim is a tautology. When we're talking about tournament games like those listed above, success isn't that simple. Not everyone is capable of winning every tournament. Some people can't win any highly-desired tournament. Going full-time as a YouTuber may be easy enough of a tournament that many can do it, depending on native language, physical beauty, finances, etc. I really doubt most can, though. Your personal network is probably highly skewed towards those who can prevail in the YouTube tournament (and at many others, but perhaps not sports-related ones based on your earlier comment).
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    I can see from your profile that you run a program where people can learn programming languages and frameworks. So you clearly agree that some things can be learned by most people who put their mind to it. Doubtless, it takes a real desire to learn, and, sure, a degree of natural aptitude, but those who have those qualifiers will generally succeed at it. I think we agree that this is fundamentally not the case with NBA, Julliard, Hollywood A-list, in which success is far more dependent on endowed traits. My observation is simply that the skills needed to succeed as content creator are more learnable by more people than pro sport, pro music or Hollywood stardom. The main qualifier for being a successful content creator is having something unique/interesting/valuable to say. And yes, confidence, presentation, production, audience engagement all matter. But all these can be developed or learned with enough dedication. And no, not 100% of the time. But it's true enough that it's worth a try if you're inspired. Please remember, the claim I'm refuting is that you can do all of these things absolutely right, and still only have a 1/10 chance of success. That's clearly untrue. In the online media world, people with unique/interesting/valuable things to say break through eventually. For what it's worth, my personal network doesn't conform to the stereotype you presume. Yes it includes highly successful people (including pro sportspeople). It includes people who have great natural ability but lack the confidence or desire to excel. And it includes people from extremely modest backgrounds, including refugees who came to Australia with nothing, but who are building businesses and profiles as creators, learning the required skills as they go, and making great progress.

tomhoward 6y ago

Not once have I used the words “hard work”. This whole discussion is in response to the claim that you can produce 3 pieces of _good content_ every week for 1-2 years and be good at promoting it, and that only 1/10 will succeed. I’m really saying this defies the definition of good content. I’m aware it can seem like a circular argument; I’m surprised people keep disputing what is a self-evident position. I don’t suggest everyone can do it. I do think most can probably do it eventually if it’s their passion and they choose to make it their top priority, but I’m aware that’s a separate debate that I don’t especially care to thrash out, as it’s not central to my point.

throwaway2048 6y ago
The fact its a circular argument means that the premise is invalid as an inescapable consequence, its fundamentally a confusion of cause and effect.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  Re-reading the thread after a night's rest, it seems everyone was getting a bit confused about the main point, myself included. When seen as a simple circular argument like that, you're right, it's pointless. As I've said several times, the main point I was refuting is that an aspiring creator could create great content and promote it perfectly, consistently over several years, and still be at the mercy of a random chance of (according to the original commenter) 1/10 as to whether they succeed. I maintain that's just not how the world works. But I understand the issue you and others take with this is that someone could _try_ to do all the right things consistently for many years, but never develop to the point where they can make a career of it. I don't dispute that. I do think the skills required are far more learnable than, say, NBA-level basketball. But just how many more people can do it, or what any given individual's chances are, well of course we don't know. For any individual to make a judgement about whether it's worth giving it a try, it's like any other career decision, and making decisions about how to invest one's time is a fundamental life skill. But I always think it's a shame when someone who could have succeeded at a creative or entrepreneurial pursuit decides not to even try because they believe the falsehood that success is random, regardless of your own qualities or efforts.
AlchemistCamp 6y ago
It's very similar to the very reasonable claim that if you put in seven _good_ practice sessions a week every week for five years and are good at deciding what to work on, you've got less than a 10% of getting into the NBA/Julliard/Hollywood A-list. Claiming that this defies the definition of good practice is essentially narrowing the definition of "good" so far that your original claim is a tautology. When we're talking about tournament games like those listed above, success isn't that simple. Not everyone is capable of winning every tournament. Some people can't win any highly-desired tournament. Going full-time as a YouTuber may be easy enough of a tournament that many can do it, depending on native language, physical beauty, finances, etc. I really doubt most can, though. Your personal network is probably highly skewed towards those who can prevail in the YouTube tournament (and at many others, but perhaps not sports-related ones based on your earlier comment).
- tomhoward 6y ago
  I can see from your profile that you run a program where people can learn programming languages and frameworks. So you clearly agree that some things can be learned by most people who put their mind to it. Doubtless, it takes a real desire to learn, and, sure, a degree of natural aptitude, but those who have those qualifiers will generally succeed at it. I think we agree that this is fundamentally not the case with NBA, Julliard, Hollywood A-list, in which success is far more dependent on endowed traits. My observation is simply that the skills needed to succeed as content creator are more learnable by more people than pro sport, pro music or Hollywood stardom. The main qualifier for being a successful content creator is having something unique/interesting/valuable to say. And yes, confidence, presentation, production, audience engagement all matter. But all these can be developed or learned with enough dedication. And no, not 100% of the time. But it's true enough that it's worth a try if you're inspired. Please remember, the claim I'm refuting is that you can do all of these things absolutely right, and still only have a 1/10 chance of success. That's clearly untrue. In the online media world, people with unique/interesting/valuable things to say break through eventually. For what it's worth, my personal network doesn't conform to the stereotype you presume. Yes it includes highly successful people (including pro sportspeople). It includes people who have great natural ability but lack the confidence or desire to excel. And it includes people from extremely modest backgrounds, including refugees who came to Australia with nothing, but who are building businesses and profiles as creators, learning the required skills as they go, and making great progress.