2016-04-01
8 分钟Today's short and Sweet Good Life Project Riff is a guest riff from my dear friend and colleague Charlie Gilkey of productive flourishing.
And it's not a rebuttal, but a bit of a response and a tweaking and addition to the last riff about the content delusion and the idea of scaling.
And I think you're going to find his contribution to this conversation really valuable and illuminating.
So with that, I'm turning it over to my buddy Charlie Gilkey.
Before I begin, I just wanted to say thanks to Jonathan for allowing me to be on the Good Life Project podcast and sharing this reaction to his post.
It's a great podcast and I'm really, really honored to be here.
So Jonathan's recently published the content delusion or why you still need to hustle a post that every entrepreneur should read.
Seriously, if you haven't read it, pause this podcast, get to the nearest connected device and read it.
It's just fantastic.
The content delusion he's referring to is the idea that content is the end all, be all and content done well is all you need to do.
He rightly points out that content is one piece of the puzzle, with hustle being the other piece.
What I'd like to add a bit more to this conversation is the other fear that the content delusion plays on.
Aside from the fear of getting out there in the flesh and bumping into people and sharing your ideas, which Jonathan mentions, the other side of the content delusion is that content well done is the only path to scalability.
Without content, you're going to end up in that less than space of trading time for dollars that no entrepreneur wants to be in, because real businesses are ones that can and should scale, and thats a given right.
The content delusion then also rides on the scalability thesis which conjoins two scalable businesses are better than non scalable businesses.
Two, trading time for dollars isnt scalable.
Therefore three, trading time for dollars isnt a good business model.
The thing about the first two premises is that they are both false, which makes the argument valid, which means it follows reasoning rules but not sound.
It's not true.
I'm aware that a there needs to be a bridge premise between the second premise and the conclusion, and b your patience with me being a philosopher and teaching logic probably isn't that high.