"Rational self-help" is the vast majority of what Lifehacker et. al. do: they aggregate anecdotal evidence. It's what EY railed against in the other-optimizing mini-sequence (here, talking about the Shangri-La Diet -- I'm sure you've already read this, but it's a particularly interesting paragraph nonetheless; some emphasis lost in the interest of time):

And what really makes this a catastrophe is that this theory has never been analyzed by controlled experiment, which drives me up the frickin' WALL. Roberts himself is a big advocate of "self-experimentation", which I suppose explains why he's not pushing harder for testing. (Though it's not like Roberts is a standard pseudoscientist, he's an academic in good standing.) But with reports of such drastic success from so many observers, some of them reliable, outside dietary scientists ought to be studying this. What the fsck, dietary scientists? Get off your butts and study this thing! NOW! Report these huge results in a peer-reviewed journal so that everyone gets excited and starts studying the exceptions to the rule!

(I would love to add here a particularly pithy, but unrelated, tangent, though I fear I've already exceeded my welcome.)

"Working on the Art" is a far different beast, best summarized as developing Practical Advice Backed by Deep Theories. Of course, that's much harder to do, but you've done a reasonably decent job of it in the past. Finally, I don't buy the hypothesis that you're anything more than a mere mortal. (For now. ^_^)

As a card-carrying member of the reds, I vote for the reduction of our numbers (less competition).