(abandoned substack post)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
solutions that extend beyond<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nhttps:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/pin\/1548181157245188\/<\/a>\n\n\n\n One of my favorite blogposts by Venkatesh Rao was about the Iron Man movies<\/a>. He describes how Tony Stark had two problems \u2013 (1) how to keep the shrapnel out of his heart, and (2) how to get out of the Afghan cave that he was being held hostage in \u2013 and he came up with a remarkable solution of building a miniature arc reactor to power the Iron Man suit. Venkat points out that Stark\u2019s single creative insight \u201ccreates potential far beyond the immediate problem\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This post has been on my mind for a very long time (10 years!), in part because I must admit there were things about RDJ\u2019s portrayal of Tony Stark that I really related to \u2013 I wasn\u2019t born wealthy and I\u2019m not a physics\/engineering genius, but there\u2019s something about Tony\u2019s vibes \u2013 creative, ENTP, free-spirited, irreverent, silly, \u2018fatherless\u2019 in a sense, showman\/diva personality, tinkering, witty \u2013 that really resonated with me. In Iron Man 2, Tony describes his suit as a high-powered prosthetic, which draws laughs, but it\u2019s also true. In Iron Man 3, his prosthetic fails on him, and the scene where he drags it through the snow was something that moved me deeply \u2013 I felt that way about my own mind, my own writing, this elaborate superstructure I built around me to help me take care of myself, to get things done, that became burdensome at times, that mostly protected me but occasionally failed on me, that I needed to tend to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I know there\u2019s something kinda pretentious and tacky about relating oneself to one of the<\/em> most popular genius-billionaire-playboy-philanthropist fictional characters\u2026 but it is what it is, if there were a better example I would pick one, but this is the one I got, so I\u2019m going to be earnest about it and I\u2019ll eat the cringe that comes with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another reason why that post stayed with me is that it seems to have some useful things to say about how to solve problems, and I have had problems that I\u2019ve wanted to solve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So. While I\u2019ve never personally been taken hostage by murdersome terrorists or have had shrapnel in my heart \u2013 (I would say though, that the ADHD-related symptoms I\u2019ve had kinda map reasonably well onto \u2018shrapnel in my brain\u2019 \u2013 it won\u2019t kill me, but it can certainly leave me very incapacitated), it occurred to me while I was in the shower earlier that my first book, Friendly Ambitious Nerd, is itself possibly a candidate for an example of \u201ca single creative insight that creates potential far beyond the immediate problem”.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main reason I wrote Friendly Ambitious Nerd was really just to have some substantial-ish piece of writing that was available for sale. I had been blogging and tweeting for years prior to that, and I figured that if I wanted to \u201cgo pro\u201d and take this seriously<\/a>, that I ought to have something for sale. And every week or so I would hear from someone who said, \u201cI really love your writing, you should write a book!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I didn\u2019t have a super clear vision in mind when I wrote it. I mainly wanted to \u201cget out of the cave\u201d, ie \u201cstop being a writer who has nothing for sale\u201d. But I wouldn\u2019t say \u201cthere was no vision\u201d. It was vague, and hard to discern, but it was there, and I have gotten better at discerning it over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem I was trying to solve was this: I believe that, whatever is the first book that you write, will be a book that people will introduce you by. \u201cMeet Visa, he\u2019s the author of X\u201d. And I wanted to make sure that the book would be something that I would be proud to be introduced by, y\u2019know? Something of a promise, something for me to live up to. Part of how I went about piecing it together was, I asked my existing readers what they liked about my writing, and how they described it to other people. This is an example of what I call \u201cpaving the desire paths\u201d, which I might write a separate essay about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the core idea is fairly intuitive: rather than try to come up with something out of the blue, simply pay attention to what already is there. And here I\u2019ll note that you can\u2019t really do this until \u201cthere\u2019s a \u2018there\u2019 there\u201d \u2013 you first have to have some body of work, which is why I rant so much about the power and value of \u201cdoing 100 things<\/a>\u201d. A body of work is a little universe that you can examine \u2013 to use Venkat\u2019s phrasing, it \u201ctakes very little creativity, and a lot of energy, but leaves you with an essential strategic asset that will be useful in any solution to a broad class of problems\u201d. By the time I sat down to piece together FAN, I already had hundreds of blogposts and about 100,000 tweets: a substantial body of work. Some people will say things like \u201cWell, of course it\u2019s easy once you\u2019ve already\u2026\u201d yeah, so first do the thing that makes the harder things easier. I call this \u201cthinking in dominos\u201d, which I might write a separate essay about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I assembled all of the descriptions that people gave me, and I laid them out \u2013 maybe in a google doc or spreadsheet, I can\u2019t quite remember \u2013 and then I moved them around, looking for patterns, similarities. I eventually found that they tended to fall into the 3 major buckets that constitute FAN: \u201cVisa is very friendly, pro-social, pro-community, earnest, optimistic, encouraging\u2026\u201d, \u201cVisa is really prolific, dreams about the big picture\u2026\u201d and \u201cVisa is so curious, always asking questions, goes on these delightful quests of wikipedia rabbitholes, trivia-seeking\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I liked the phrase enough, it felt like a good-enough introduction to my style, my goals and interests, and it felt like there was something compelling about it (after all, if people were already introducing my work to others based one 1\/3 of FAN, surely all 3 at once would be even more potent?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n So. I wrote the ebook. If you ask me, it\u2019s conceptually pretty good, but it\u2019s not actually very well-written. I intend to update it. I\u2019ve vaguely held on to the intention of updating it every since I shipped it \u2013 embarrassingly, I said that I would update it \u201cwithin a week\u201d or something like that. It\u2019s been 2 years. I\u2019m now starting to feel a stronger compulsion to update it, particularly with what I\u2019ve learned since writing it, since witnessing what other people think about it, observing how it responds\u2026 like smoke in the air<\/p>\n\n\n\n anyway if i\u2019m being honest all of this is just me repeating myself \u2013 I guess it was interesting that dinesh was sort of surprised\/intrigued by the bookwriting point \u2013 but mainly the thing is that I want to be writing FAN 2.0. I have been wanting to write FAN 2.0 for some time. And I just had this euphoric thought in the shower a few hours ago\u2026 that I want to give an excellent presentation at Thesis in February in New York, and I want it to be about FAN, obviously. And\u2026 how can I make that presentation be truly excellent? Well for starters, someone described it as \u201cMarcus Aurelius\u2019s Meditations for Twitter Addicts\u201d, and I think that\u2019s a great starting point. I also came up with Thinking In Dominos after <\/em>writing FAN, so maybe I should publish that post before this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2731<\/p>\n\n\n\n also note to self somewhere that i meant to write polytribal weirdheart as an essay somewhere<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2731<\/p>\n\n\n\nwhy I wrote friendly ambitious nerd<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
People will introduce you as the author of the book that you write<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n