This is the paradox of the post social media world. I see a lot of mid-tier talent—in all sorts of disciplines/industries—being elevated, while what I personally consider the "greats" get a fraction of the attention (e.g., this designer who I love and have bought stuff from but seems to be a relative unknown [1]).
The book "Do the Work" explained it well: "The amateur tweets. The pro works." People who fit into the Shell Silverstein "I'm so good I don't have to brag" bucket aren't as visible because they're working, not talking about working.
Something fairly consistent I've observed: the popular people you see tweeting and on every podcast are likely not very good at what they're popular for.
Sometimes there's overlap, but it's the exception, not the rule.
> People who fit into the Shell Silverstein "I'm so good I don't have to brag" bucket aren't as visible because they're working, not talking about working.
It isn't as much as "talking about working" but putting the bulk of their effort in self-promotion.
If you hire someone because they excelled at self-promotion, the reason you hired them is because they excelled at self-promotion. Not because they are great or even good, but because they are good at convincing the likes of you to hire the likes of them.
In business settings this sort of problem ends up being a vicious cycle. Anyone that hires a self-promoting scrub is motivated to make that decision look like a success as well, otherwise the scrub's failure will also be their own failure. If these scrubs output passable work instead of great or even good, that's something you as a manager can work with.
I like live music. I've seen plenty of famous bands play before.
But the best live band I've ever seen was an almost completely unknown local band from Florida (that almost never played outside that state, as far as I'm aware).
I'm willing to believe that there's an even better band out there somewhere that's never even played outside of a garage.
There's the old paradox about self-help gurus and how they're rarely successful because they take their own advice, but because they get paid to share their advice... I feel like the "mid-tier creative who's famous on socials" phenomenon is similar, although I couldn't exactly say how.
The comments consistently describe the victory of self-promotion over real greatness. I had a strange thought: what if that applies to da Vinci too, and we don't know who the real greats of the Renaissance are. You might say, "What about the Mona Lisa?" It turns out that the Mona Lisa wasn't especially famous until it was stolen from the Louvre in 1911.
At least in my personal experience, the combination of doing interesting things and talking about them in a somewhat public setting is something almost all really successful people do, and what few don't have a friend who is a hype man for them.
While there are charlatans that are all talk, it's extremely common among genuinely brilliant people to work too much and don't do enough talking about it. Talking about what you're doing opens doors. It connects you with other people. It gets you funded. Being brilliant in obscurity does not.
Richard Feynman and Julian Schwinger won the nobel prize the same year. Both are fairly brilliant theoretical physicists and the prize was well deserved, but only one of them was charismatic and loved to talk about himself and what he was doing, and as a result, is much more of a household name even today.
I don't see it as particularly social media related. That's just the cheapest way to get attention these days. I recall Benjamin Franklin famously pushing paper around town in a wheelbarrow to seem like a hard working young printer:
> I sometimes brought home the paper I purchased at the stores thro' the streets on a wheelbarrow. Thus being esteemed an industrious, thriving young man, and paying duly for what I bought, the merchants who imported stationery solicited my custom
He went out of his way to get positive attention, and it worked.
The Giving Tree (by Shel Silverstein) came out in the same year my dad was born. But my parents still read it to me.
I still don't understand why I have such a strong reaction to the book. It feels like the message is "take care of your parents instead of just taking from them".
> This is the paradox of the post social media world. I see a lot of mid-tier talent—in all sorts of disciplines/industries—being elevated, while what I personally consider the "greats" get a fraction of the attention (e.g., this designer who I love and have bought stuff from but seems to be a relative unknown [1]).
Attention comes mainly from understanding. And all people are in the mid to low-tier of understanding things outside their own specialization, and too often even within their own specialization.
So to understand something great, you have to have enough insight into that area to see the greatness. And on the other side, there is also the false perception of thinking something is great, while you are just too low in your understanding, to see why it's just mid. Isn't this also basically what Dunning-Kruger-effect is about?
Honestly some of the best content I have been seeing is MIT application videos (both accepted and rejected), it is high school level but it leads to a lot of interesting discussions
As a designer, I know some absolutely amazing artists who just hunker down and produce phenomenal art/designs and I am not fluffing here. As a climber, I also know of climbers who are at the best in the world level, but don’t post sends on IG or muck about in socially promoting themselves. It’s great to know that there are extremely talented people doing their thing and it’s not driven by leaderboards or social clout.
I had a similar train of thought like the author has, but it happened while I was playing Expedition 33, which is a game made by former Ubisoft developers who decided to go indie, and made something that is really cool.
It made me realize that there's an innumerable amount of talented people out there, who are most definitely capable enough or willing to grow enough, that can produce something that makes you think that Ubisoft could have made it, because those people were always right there!
And if they weren't motivated enough to risk it all, because you're only starting from a mere idea, we would never have seen the fruits of their labor.
I'm not claiming that they're comparable with the greatest artists of our time but, the probability of someone out there becoming great will be silenced and squashed before it even has a chance to show up, either because they must conform to the job market to survive day to day, or because of office politics, or out of their own temperament avoiding risks. Especially if that risk is unemployment and homelessness.
As a fan of John Carmack, for example, I have to wonder if he would've ever hit the status he achieved if Doom wasn't this fun to play, or if he kept shipping monthly video games by mail instead. I'm not talking about whether he would be this intelligent or not, but whether he would be known.
This is well written. It also seems to describe society at large, especially our current society. So many things work so well, they become invisible. After time, people dont even realize how much is working behind the scenes to make everything work well and they assume we dont need those things.
One of the reasons I love listening to 99% Invisible podcast[1]. Not just a great designer is unknown, but the hallmark of a great design is that its almost invisible unless you look for it.
In fact, part of the reason for the current cacophony is that everyone has discovered this fact. Better to invest your time being seen than being good.
It's a kind of tragedy of the commons. Instead of our attention being taken up by creatives who are mostly competent, it is taken up by everyone who wants to short circuit the system. (This would be even more interesting if I could find that article that suggests our taste in music is actually created by exposure.)
There used to be editors of various sorts, whether it be in writing, art, or music, who would be the arbiters of taste. You could indeed take issue with who they decided to elevate, but they definitely provided a useful function.
They probably did recognize diamonds in the rough. I’ll also say that the one time I did a book through a publisher it was because I happened to be seated next to the managing director and followed up with the acquisitions editor over coffee in London. Would probably never have happened had I sent in a proposal cold. Didn’t make me much money but was a nice addition to the resume.
I love this line in the post: "The next time you use something that works so well you barely notice it, remember that somewhere, a designer solved a problem so thoroughly that both the problem and its solution became invisible."
There a things that I immediately replace when they break or get lost: bolt cutters, dremel, leatherman. There's software like IDEs, Zim, Inkscape.
It's very much like losing a limb when any of it is unavailable and it's absolutely true that there are folks out there who did their job so well as to make them indispensable.
This was my experience in the "maker movement" in the 2010s. You may know me from OpenRov, RobotsAnywhere/CellBots, and the NAVCOM AI autopilot. But you probably don't.
Who got attention? People who spent 20% of their time making and 80% self-promoting.
People just don't know the difference between popularity and merit. Similarly, they don't know the difference between someone who is successful or good at what they do versus one who makes a lot of money.
Butler's piece is spot on. It reminds me of those core open-source tools we all depend on daily but rarely think about the people behind them. Like, who actually knows the name of the person who maintains requests in Python? Probably very few, yet their work is fundamental. That quiet contribution feels like the real definition of impactful design, way beyond the noise of social media.
I’ll go a step further. If someone is well known it’s more likely than not that they’re a charlatan. Not always of course. But if someone gives 6+ conference talks a year it’s like 80%+ chance they’re a dingleberry.
The world is full of amazingly talented and hard working people. Almost all of them are not on social media.
This is why I hate the end of project awards. Someone always get great credit for staying late to save the project - but if they had done their job right in the first place the project wouldn't have needed saving.
This is a life fact, I realized this early on. I grew up in part of India which is close to the famous Ajanta caves. There are several local artists there, who literally carve a stone into an absolutely beautiful images of Buddha. A lot of times the tools they used were so crude, imagine what they would do if they had access to modern tools. Similarly, when we look at some of the most beautiful ancient artifacts we can hardly say with confidence who actually built them and whether they were truly the greatest of their times. Personally, I find this very satisfying, there is no need of recognition, all one needs is to enjoy what they do.
if I'm understanding correctly the implications of Emily Noether's work, its an absolute travesty that she isn't famous in the same breath as Einstein and Feynman. Yet this video was the first time I had even heard of her.
There are many great scientists you've never heard about. Soviet side of the world was almost as big as western. Yet they got only a very few nobel prices. It was absurd when western derivative got, but not the original work.
Einstein's discovery explained a centuries old mystery that people, including every major mind of the time, were completely and fundamentally on the wrong track towards. All without being able to find any academic position that would have him - he was working as a low ranking patent inspector at the time. And that discovery completely reshaped physics, which many at the time thought had been mostly 'solved' and was down to a measuring game.
I think a parallel would be if some random guy, outside of academia, completely and cleanly solved the dark energy/matter mystery in his spare time, with a revolutionary way of thinking, and it completely reshaped our understanding of not only the cosmos but of physics itself.
Becoming well known for advanced works in science requires a once in many centuries type level of achievement - which is what Einstein was. Feynman is a great example of this. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest physicists of all time and made many important contributions to science, yet he would probably be relatively unknown if not for his excessive public outreach and his exceptional ability to explain complex concepts in an extremely intuitive and clear fashion. A talent which he put to extensive use.
It's easy. You just compare your thing to everything similar and keep at it until you are convinced yours is miles ahead. Other opinions are irrelevant.
I think that greatness of mind needs to be coupled with ambition, a certain level of arrogance and self-absorbtion, and a personality that doesn't make you a pariah.
I suspect that combinations like that, are, indeed, as rare as hen's teeth.
Many great talents probably couldn't be arsed to play the rat race game, and keep their domain humble, or they piss off other people so much, that they never get a break.
works for SWEs too - I've had the pleasure working with a bunch of amazing SWEs in my almost 3 decades in the industry, 9 out of top 10 if I rank them do not have a Github account or blog or post sht on "X" or wherever... Just do amazing sht at work and go home to their families :)
Absolutely. And there are plenty of occupations where even a Michael Jordan level talent would go totally unknown and unappreciated. Accountant. Plumber. Chemist. Many more.
about the lack of AppleTV marketing support for one of its shows, called La Maison).
That opens an interesting discussion: the role of their influencers. Their choices can either bless or curse anyone’s work just by manipulating the word of mouth.
[+] [-] rglover|11 months ago|reply
The book "Do the Work" explained it well: "The amateur tweets. The pro works." People who fit into the Shell Silverstein "I'm so good I don't have to brag" bucket aren't as visible because they're working, not talking about working.
Something fairly consistent I've observed: the popular people you see tweeting and on every podcast are likely not very good at what they're popular for.
Sometimes there's overlap, but it's the exception, not the rule.
[1] https://xtian.design/
[+] [-] motorest|11 months ago|reply
It isn't as much as "talking about working" but putting the bulk of their effort in self-promotion.
If you hire someone because they excelled at self-promotion, the reason you hired them is because they excelled at self-promotion. Not because they are great or even good, but because they are good at convincing the likes of you to hire the likes of them.
In business settings this sort of problem ends up being a vicious cycle. Anyone that hires a self-promoting scrub is motivated to make that decision look like a success as well, otherwise the scrub's failure will also be their own failure. If these scrubs output passable work instead of great or even good, that's something you as a manager can work with.
[+] [-] LambdaComplex|11 months ago|reply
But the best live band I've ever seen was an almost completely unknown local band from Florida (that almost never played outside that state, as far as I'm aware).
I'm willing to believe that there's an even better band out there somewhere that's never even played outside of a garage.
[+] [-] spondylosaurus|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] marklubi|11 months ago|reply
Changed an industry, made a lot of money, and pretty much nobody knows who I am (which I'm completely fine with). Not looking for fame, don't want it.
[+] [-] kens|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] marginalia_nu|11 months ago|reply
While there are charlatans that are all talk, it's extremely common among genuinely brilliant people to work too much and don't do enough talking about it. Talking about what you're doing opens doors. It connects you with other people. It gets you funded. Being brilliant in obscurity does not.
Richard Feynman and Julian Schwinger won the nobel prize the same year. Both are fairly brilliant theoretical physicists and the prize was well deserved, but only one of them was charismatic and loved to talk about himself and what he was doing, and as a result, is much more of a household name even today.
[+] [-] criddell|11 months ago|reply
In that context, doing the work would refer to creating social media posts and the subject of those posts is secondary.
[+] [-] nitwit005|11 months ago|reply
> I sometimes brought home the paper I purchased at the stores thro' the streets on a wheelbarrow. Thus being esteemed an industrious, thriving young man, and paying duly for what I bought, the merchants who imported stationery solicited my custom
He went out of his way to get positive attention, and it worked.
[+] [-] begueradj|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jjmarr|11 months ago|reply
I still don't understand why I have such a strong reaction to the book. It feels like the message is "take care of your parents instead of just taking from them".
[+] [-] zombot|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] slightwinder|11 months ago|reply
Attention comes mainly from understanding. And all people are in the mid to low-tier of understanding things outside their own specialization, and too often even within their own specialization.
So to understand something great, you have to have enough insight into that area to see the greatness. And on the other side, there is also the false perception of thinking something is great, while you are just too low in your understanding, to see why it's just mid. Isn't this also basically what Dunning-Kruger-effect is about?
[+] [-] pixl97|11 months ago|reply
Now I'm not much for salespeople in general, but I do understand their purpose.
[+] [-] mclau157|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] pelagic_sky|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Arisaka1|11 months ago|reply
It made me realize that there's an innumerable amount of talented people out there, who are most definitely capable enough or willing to grow enough, that can produce something that makes you think that Ubisoft could have made it, because those people were always right there!
And if they weren't motivated enough to risk it all, because you're only starting from a mere idea, we would never have seen the fruits of their labor.
I'm not claiming that they're comparable with the greatest artists of our time but, the probability of someone out there becoming great will be silenced and squashed before it even has a chance to show up, either because they must conform to the job market to survive day to day, or because of office politics, or out of their own temperament avoiding risks. Especially if that risk is unemployment and homelessness.
As a fan of John Carmack, for example, I have to wonder if he would've ever hit the status he achieved if Doom wasn't this fun to play, or if he kept shipping monthly video games by mail instead. I'm not talking about whether he would be this intelligent or not, but whether he would be known.
[+] [-] DudeOpotomus|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] setsewerd|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] abtinf|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|11 months ago|reply
I’d rather do the thing than talk about it. Or, frankly, watch/listen/read others.
[+] [-] ilrwbwrkhv|11 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wanderingmind|11 months ago|reply
[1] https://99percentinvisible.org/
[+] [-] lordnacho|11 months ago|reply
It's a kind of tragedy of the commons. Instead of our attention being taken up by creatives who are mostly competent, it is taken up by everyone who wants to short circuit the system. (This would be even more interesting if I could find that article that suggests our taste in music is actually created by exposure.)
There used to be editors of various sorts, whether it be in writing, art, or music, who would be the arbiters of taste. You could indeed take issue with who they decided to elevate, but they definitely provided a useful function.
[+] [-] ghaff|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] FrameworkFred|11 months ago|reply
There a things that I immediately replace when they break or get lost: bolt cutters, dremel, leatherman. There's software like IDEs, Zim, Inkscape.
It's very much like losing a limb when any of it is unavailable and it's absolutely true that there are folks out there who did their job so well as to make them indispensable.
Great post.
[+] [-] spiritplumber|11 months ago|reply
Who got attention? People who spent 20% of their time making and 80% self-promoting.
[+] [-] ilaksh|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] alissa_v|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|11 months ago|reply
The world is full of amazingly talented and hard working people. Almost all of them are not on social media.
[+] [-] spamjavalin|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bluGill|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] nelblu|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cultofmetatron|11 months ago|reply
if I'm understanding correctly the implications of Emily Noether's work, its an absolute travesty that she isn't famous in the same breath as Einstein and Feynman. Yet this video was the first time I had even heard of her.
[+] [-] MoonGhost|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] somenameforme|11 months ago|reply
I think a parallel would be if some random guy, outside of academia, completely and cleanly solved the dark energy/matter mystery in his spare time, with a revolutionary way of thinking, and it completely reshaped our understanding of not only the cosmos but of physics itself.
Becoming well known for advanced works in science requires a once in many centuries type level of achievement - which is what Einstein was. Feynman is a great example of this. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest physicists of all time and made many important contributions to science, yet he would probably be relatively unknown if not for his excessive public outreach and his exceptional ability to explain complex concepts in an extremely intuitive and clear fashion. A talent which he put to extensive use.
[+] [-] esafak|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] econ|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisMarshallNY|11 months ago|reply
I suspect that combinations like that, are, indeed, as rare as hen's teeth.
Many great talents probably couldn't be arsed to play the rat race game, and keep their domain humble, or they piss off other people so much, that they never get a break.
[+] [-] handfuloflight|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eddieh|11 months ago|reply
Where X is any vocation, skill, talent, etc…
[+] [-] bdangubic|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] listenallyall|11 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lolive|11 months ago|reply
about the lack of AppleTV marketing support for one of its shows, called La Maison).
That opens an interesting discussion: the role of their influencers. Their choices can either bless or curse anyone’s work just by manipulating the word of mouth.
[which reminds me of that absolutely brilliant speech by Alan Moore, on « magic » : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k1qACd0wHd0]