4 ms·

Yeah, in the universe. More ambitious even than Glorblax, creator of the monoliths. Why does anyone ever continue reading an article after a headline like that

Yeah, in the universe. More ambitious even than Glorblax, creator of the monoliths. Why does anyone ever continue reading an article after a headline like that? Nothing can follow except a thoughtless a puff piece.

rattray 12y ago
> Why does _anyone_ Some people like puff pieces, or don't spend much time worrying about whether Glorblax got his fair recognition. (Personally, I agree with you)
graycat 12y ago
I nearly posted my standard view of Fortune but relented. But with your comment, here goes! My view of Fortune is that they have a formula for such articles. First glance, the article seems to be to provide information to the readers, say, as in "this is what this really successful guy does that you, the reader, might learn from and find useful in your work in business". But my view is that this first glance is nearly totally wrong. Instead the formula for the articles is not to provide useful, or even very solid, information at all. Instead, the formula is a manipulation of the reader: The reader is made to feel good about themselves. How? The article makes the subject's work look simple, definitely like the reader can easily see themselves doing the same. Then the reader feels like they are on the right track, that is, already doing as well as the subject of the article. So, the article passes out a lot of simplistic insights, cliches, trivialities, etc. that any reader can agree that they could have done. Really it is best for the formula if the reader comes away learning nothing at all; that is, part of the formula is to make the reader conclude that they are already on the right track, already know as much as the subject in the article, could easily do just what the subject does, and, thus, are on the way also to being worth billions. So, a main goal is that the reader learn nothing! So, are making the reader feel good by confirming that the simplistic thoughts that they can easily already have really are the right stuff. Or, such an article is vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment (VEFEEE). And that's the article. The formula is to manipulate the reader into coming back for more, thinking that, "I'm reading Fortune and, thus, learning from the best Captains of Business; oh, oh, oh, I'm learning so much; and, since these guys are worth billions, I can be, too.". I concluded all this long ago. I am surprised to see Fortune still following the same old formula. Heck, I kept reading to the end just to see if they had any significant content beyond their old formula -- they didn't. So, net, I gave up on Fortune for years, and now I'll give up on the Web version for more years! What a big pile of nutten, deliberately, very carefully crafted, total nutten! "Thoughtless" you say! How kind you are!

rattray 12y ago

> Why does _anyone_ Some people like puff pieces, or don't spend much time worrying about whether Glorblax got his fair recognition. (Personally, I agree with you)

graycat 12y ago

I nearly posted my standard view of Fortune but relented. But with your comment, here goes! My view of Fortune is that they have a formula for such articles. First glance, the article seems to be to provide information to the readers, say, as in "this is what this really successful guy does that you, the reader, might learn from and find useful in your work in business". But my view is that this first glance is nearly totally wrong. Instead the formula for the articles is not to provide useful, or even very solid, information at all. Instead, the formula is a manipulation of the reader: The reader is made to feel good about themselves. How? The article makes the subject's work look simple, definitely like the reader can easily see themselves doing the same. Then the reader feels like they are on the right track, that is, already doing as well as the subject of the article. So, the article passes out a lot of simplistic insights, cliches, trivialities, etc. that any reader can agree that they could have done. Really it is best for the formula if the reader comes away learning nothing at all; that is, part of the formula is to make the reader conclude that they are already on the right track, already know as much as the subject in the article, could easily do just what the subject does, and, thus, are on the way also to being worth billions. So, a main goal is that the reader learn nothing! So, are making the reader feel good by confirming that the simplistic thoughts that they can easily already have really are the right stuff. Or, such an article is vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment (VEFEEE). And that's the article. The formula is to manipulate the reader into coming back for more, thinking that, "I'm reading Fortune and, thus, learning from the best Captains of Business; oh, oh, oh, I'm learning so much; and, since these guys are worth billions, I can be, too.". I concluded all this long ago. I am surprised to see Fortune still following the same old formula. Heck, I kept reading to the end just to see if they had any significant content beyond their old formula -- they didn't. So, net, I gave up on Fortune for years, and now I'll give up on the Web version for more years! What a big pile of nutten, deliberately, very carefully crafted, total nutten! "Thoughtless" you say! How kind you are!