4 ms·

Did you even read the same post that I did? He's complaining about text books... He complains about the price and then later advocates that professors should

by froo 17y ago

Did you even read the same post that I did? He's complaining about text books... He complains about the price and then later advocates that professors should give away their content online for free instead of in textbooks. Yet he does exactly the same thing, has content in his books that he charges for. I'm not suggesting that the price for textbooks isn't outrageous, While doing my double degree I felt like I was getting ripped off left and right, but the fact is - saying "give away your content instead of writing a book" and not doing it yourself makes you a hypocrite. Sure, Seth blogs about his ideas, but generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. I'll also note that his blog posts often allude to ideas that he covers in his actual books (eg, the Guy #3 post talks about Tribes and guess what one of the title of his books is called?). So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct.

GHFigs 17y ago
"give away your content instead of writing a book" You've used quotation marks, but what you've but between them is not a quote. As I said before, giving away knowledge and selling knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe that textbooks are the only possible way to sell knowledge, there is no way to read the post as suggesting that selling knowledge instead of giving it away is verboten. generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them". Secondly, nowhere doe he suggest giving away textbooks for free. You're grossly distorting the text by implying that. That he describes assigning a textbook as "academic malpractice" strongly indicates that his position is not that textbooks should be freely available. So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct. How is that relevant? I never disagreed with that assertion. Nor would I, because it is transparently obvious. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?
- froo 17y ago
  First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them". Umm, he writes "They are incredibly impractical. Not just in terms of the lessons taught, but in terms of being a reference book for years down the road....The solution seems simple to me. Professors should be spending their time devising pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them, then publishing them for free online. (it's part of their job, remember?) When you have a class to teach, assemble 100 of the best pieces, put them in a pdf or on a kindle or a website (or even in a looseleaf notebook) and there, you're done." That explicitly states, instead of writing a text book - professors should publish their content for free, online. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical? You've missed my argument... I'm saying that arguing that he doesn't practise what he's preaching, which makes him a hypocrite. He plainly states (which I have quoted for you, verbatim since you can't seem to see it) that text books are impractical and that instead of writing a text book, those professors should put their content online for free. You mentioned that there is nothing stopping professors publishing books, which I agree - there is not, yet Seth is saying that they shouldn't publish, instead give away their content online, for free as it's part of their job. Yet, despite that, Seth is doing the complete opposite of what he's saying. The vast majority of his content isn't free - it's in a book that you buy, seminars that you attend or you can purchase his time in the form of consulting. The fact that he occasionally blogs snippets of information is irrelevant, since you also agree that he uses the blog only as a marketing channel. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical? No, I think you perhaps don't quite understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. I'll paste a definition in for you. Hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. There, by definition, a person who's actions belie states beliefs. Seth believes that professors (who's job it is to impart knowledge) should give their content away online for free instead of writing a book is a hypocritical statement given part of his job is the imparting of knowledge. He does not give away all of his content online, for free, instead, it can be purchased in one of the many books he has for sale. The fact that he's made this assertion that that content should be available online for free, instead of being purchased in a book is especially humorous when you see the adverts for his book just to the left of that exact same statement.

by froo 17y ago

GHFigs 17y ago

"give away your content instead of writing a book" You've used quotation marks, but what you've but between them is not a quote. As I said before, giving away knowledge and selling knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe that textbooks are the only possible way to sell knowledge, there is no way to read the post as suggesting that selling knowledge instead of giving it away is verboten. generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them". Secondly, nowhere doe he suggest giving away textbooks for free. You're grossly distorting the text by implying that. That he describes assigning a textbook as "academic malpractice" strongly indicates that his position is not that textbooks should be freely available. So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct. How is that relevant? I never disagreed with that assertion. Nor would I, because it is transparently obvious. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?

froo 17y ago
First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them". Umm, he writes "They are incredibly impractical. Not just in terms of the lessons taught, but in terms of being a reference book for years down the road....The solution seems simple to me. Professors should be spending their time devising pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them, then publishing them for free online. (it's part of their job, remember?) When you have a class to teach, assemble 100 of the best pieces, put them in a pdf or on a kindle or a website (or even in a looseleaf notebook) and there, you're done." That explicitly states, instead of writing a text book - professors should publish their content for free, online. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical? You've missed my argument... I'm saying that arguing that he doesn't practise what he's preaching, which makes him a hypocrite. He plainly states (which I have quoted for you, verbatim since you can't seem to see it) that text books are impractical and that instead of writing a text book, those professors should put their content online for free. You mentioned that there is nothing stopping professors publishing books, which I agree - there is not, yet Seth is saying that they shouldn't publish, instead give away their content online, for free as it's part of their job. Yet, despite that, Seth is doing the complete opposite of what he's saying. The vast majority of his content isn't free - it's in a book that you buy, seminars that you attend or you can purchase his time in the form of consulting. The fact that he occasionally blogs snippets of information is irrelevant, since you also agree that he uses the blog only as a marketing channel. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical? No, I think you perhaps don't quite understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. I'll paste a definition in for you. Hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. There, by definition, a person who's actions belie states beliefs. Seth believes that professors (who's job it is to impart knowledge) should give their content away online for free instead of writing a book is a hypocritical statement given part of his job is the imparting of knowledge. He does not give away all of his content online, for free, instead, it can be purchased in one of the many books he has for sale. The fact that he's made this assertion that that content should be available online for free, instead of being purchased in a book is especially humorous when you see the adverts for his book just to the left of that exact same statement.