= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (220)
But how will people find out your house is in order unless you reach out to them and tell them? That's the whole point of the Intentional Insights endeavor - to show people how they can have a better life and have their house be more in order through engaging with science-backed rational thinking strategies. In the language of houses, it's the Gryffindor arm of Hufflepuff, reaching out to others and welcoming them into rational thinking.
Because happy people talk to their friends about their experiences. Personal recommendations carry a lot more weight than popular mainstream articles.
There are people who believe in scientism and will take a thinking strategy because someone says that it's science-based. That's not what rationality is about. I think part of this community is not simply following the authority but wanting to here the chain of reason why a certain strategy is science-based.
Yes, personal recommendations carry more weight. But mainstream articles have a lot more reach. As I described here, the Lifehack article was viewed by many thousands of people. This is the point of writing for a broad audience. Moreover, as you can see from the discussion you and I had about a previous article, the articles are based on research.
My comments are based on my experience with doing media interviews that have 2 orders of magnitude more reach.
Have you done them on a consistent basis, as I am able to do Lifehack articles every couple of weeks?
I have also just published an article in the Sunday edition of a newspaper, described here, with a paper edition reaching 420K readers and monthly visits of 5 million.
In 2012 I talked to rougly one journalist per month.
Okay, that's more than thousands.
I think that article. There's no deep analysis what ISIS wants but that's okay for a mainstream publication and recruiting is a factor.
In case you write another article about ISIS, I would recommend as background reading: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-strategic-value-of-compassion-welcoming-refugees-is-devastating-to-is/article27373931/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Cool, thanks for the links, much appreciated!
Separately, I'd be curious about your experience talking to journalists about rationality. Think you can do a discussion post about that?
My topic was Quantified Self with adjacent but not direct.