The article highlights how trying to make money can quickly and thoroughly poison your hobby. The golden quote:
> “Hmm…I want to write a book. I would really love to write a sappy romance novel because I think they’re so fun to write. But I need to turn it into profit, so I should do market research and see what’s trending and build off that. Self-help is big, let’s try to focus on that, even though I personally hate self-help books.”
Note the change. "I really want to write a romance novel. I did market research. Self-help sells better. I'll write self-help then."
Following this thinking, you'll end up doing something you hate (and probably produce a barely sellable garbage). Hobby is about a thing ("I want to write a romance novel"). Making money is about money, and the thing is only means to an end ("I'll write whatever sells best, and maybe I should reconsider whether I can do something else than writing for even more money.").
I'd argue that even in professional life, this kind of thinking taken to the extreme is poison, and part of what ruins our societies and the planet. That is, companies which are really indifferent to what they're doing, and only focused on whether they can make money on it.
(One could argue that this is how market economy is supposed to work - don't think for yourself, don't feel for yourself, just do what the Market tells you to. We can see both good and bad consequences of that thinking all around us.)
I agree that taking it to an extreme can be a poison, but neglecting it entirely can be a poison too.
I've said this before on HN, but my recommendation is this: Most people can find a set of things they're willing to do. If you only have one thing you think you can do with your life, first try expanding your wings and sampling a few more things.
Then, write down on one list the things you want to do with life, in some rough order of preference. On another list, write down the marketable things you think you're capable of, in some rough order of lucrativeness.
Odds are, there's going to be something that shows up reasonably positioned on both lists. "Software engineer" was certainly not my #1 on my "list of things I'd like to do", but my personal #1 was frankly absurdly unrealistic and barely shows on the "what I can make money with" list at all. (The modal outcome is quite likely $0/yr, honestly.) But software engineer was a pretty solid #2. On the other side of the list, I probably could have been a lawyer, and may well have made more money at it, but it didn't show very high on my "list of things I'd like to do". Software engineer was somewhere around #2 on both lists, so it won. I have no regrets. It was a fine choice. And it was something I could easily figure out how to angle for, and there was no simply blundering into a career.
If you do want to write something, and you want to make money at it, I recommend a similar approach. Wanting to write a romance novel and deciding to write a self-help book may not bring you joy, but wanting to write a romance novel and instead writing a YA romance novel because that's where the money is may not be such a sacrifice.
I missed that on HN before, so thanks for writing again. I never thought of writing down two lists, even though it's obvious in retrospect. I'll try this exercise.
I did come to the conclusion some time ago that since writing code is my #1 money-making skill and in top #3 of "things I'd love to do" (and a part of #1 too), but the types of programs to write are different, I need to focus on finding overlap in what I write when looking for jobs or (now) customers.
Somebody needs to write self help books for the people who need them. That somebody should do a lot of boring research (note that I said should: the implication that they might not is intentional).
Society would fall apart without people who clean sewers, take the trash, and many other tasks that are unpleasant. Maybe you are lucky enough to get paid well to do what you love. Maybe you are not willing to do some unpleasant job that would pay better than your own. Likely you are unable to do some jobs (lack of training or lack of physical ability). No matter what you do, and no matter what your abilities: there is some other job that you could do instead. The market economy works because it provides motivation for people to not do a job they would love and instead do something else.
> Somebody needs to write self help books for the people who need them. That somebody should do a lot of boring research (note that I said should: the implication that they might not is intentional).
That doesn't mean it should be the author. If he hates self-help books as a concept, he'd probably do a shit job at it. That is, he might make money, but the book wouldn't be useful. Market economy as it is today, in practice, is pretty bad at rewarding quality. Marketing gives much greater ROI.
> The market economy works because it provides motivation for people to not do a job they would love and instead do something else.
I recognize that and this is the main thing I meant under "good" when I wrote about "good and bad" consequences. Unfortunately, Sturgeon's law applies - "90% of everything is crap". The market doesn't seem good at reducing this percentage. In self-help space, we need more Carnegies and Coveys, and less copycats who arrive in the space through "market research" and crap out nonsense that ultimately wastes buyers' money. Same thing applies to all other spaces. My complaint isn't really about the market telling you what to do - I'm just wishing the market was better at directing the right people to the right jobs, ensuring there's "impedance match" between the worker and the work.
I'm not sure how we can get there, though I think it would have to start with completely destroying the marketing industry. The world won't stop drowning in bad products and services for as long as a dollar spent on marketing buys you more profit than a dollar spent on product development or improving your service. Marketing completely scrambles people's ability to evaluate and reward quality and utility.
> “Hmm…I want to write a book. I would really love to write a sappy romance novel because I think they’re so fun to write. But I need to turn it into profit, so I should do market research and see what’s trending and build off that. Self-help is big, let’s try to focus on that, even though I personally hate self-help books.”
Note the change. "I really want to write a romance novel. I did market research. Self-help sells better. I'll write self-help then."
Following this thinking, you'll end up doing something you hate (and probably produce a barely sellable garbage). Hobby is about a thing ("I want to write a romance novel"). Making money is about money, and the thing is only means to an end ("I'll write whatever sells best, and maybe I should reconsider whether I can do something else than writing for even more money.").
I'd argue that even in professional life, this kind of thinking taken to the extreme is poison, and part of what ruins our societies and the planet. That is, companies which are really indifferent to what they're doing, and only focused on whether they can make money on it.
(One could argue that this is how market economy is supposed to work - don't think for yourself, don't feel for yourself, just do what the Market tells you to. We can see both good and bad consequences of that thinking all around us.)