Skip to main content

Money does not solve all your problems

Yeah right. People without money hear that all the time. Don't touch my sportscar!
James Altucher got that straight by completing the phrase. "Money does not solve all your problems - but it solves your money-problems"
Which is a lot.
And a driving force behind his extremely successful blog, Altucher Confidential.

And he is part of the the '10 easy steps to...', '10 things to take when you go to Mars' - advice columns that infest the net. I once wrote so - mildly critical - spotting the now legendary (and then half-legendary) guy close to this bunch of click-baiters (here). He was personally offended and posted quite a nice reply - he saw himself as actually helping people (what he did). Got close to Yoga (through personal experience). And his writing was really fast and great.
It just sometimes smelled like there was a business-idea somewhere in the machine-room. And indeed, we now get these never-ending videos where you are strung along ('wait, I will tell you my biggest secret at the end...' - I never waited. And I am still working for money).
James Altucher is entertaining. A quick mind. And I am sure he would not comment the same way he did in those old days. No allergic reactions to '10 easy steps to...' - except that The World at large has reacted:
Now '9 (NINE) steps to...'-lists have become fashionable.
Yay!
(I am not sure they have understood my point)

Comments

Carsten Hucho said…
oh, just checked on his recent post.... and there we go
"9 Steps to success"
it is magic

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

Information obesity? Don't swallow it!

Great - now they call it 'information obesity'! If you can name it, you know it. My favourite source of intellectual shallowness, bighthink.com, again wraps a whiff of nothing into a lengthy video-message. As if seeing a person read a text that barely covers up it's own emptyness makes it more valuable. More expensive to produce, sure. But valuable? It is ok, that Clay Johnson does everything to sell his book. But (why) is it necessary to waste so many words, spoken or written, to debate a perceived information overflow? Is it fighting fire with fire? It is cute to pack the problem of distractions into the metaphore of 'obesity', 'diet' and so on. But the solution is the same. At the core of every diet you have 'burn more than you eat'. If you cross a street, you don't read every licence-plate, you don't talk to everybody you encounter, you don't count the number of windows of the houses across, you don't interpret the sounds an