This interesting point of view confounds certain things about the allegorical game. Take the bit on Hugh Howey: while it’s true that library shelf space is not the contest that matters, there still was always a contest over people’s pocket money, and even, over people’s entertainment time and money. Hugh Howey *did* eat the lunch of some other authors; he did displace them, if not on shelves, at least on the market. He has not invented a whole new market, he just found a very good way to compete and win.
The idea that the game of “great value generation” is open and welcoming is naive and disingenuous. Of course, the cost of entry is not that high. Still, burning out remains easy to do and is a real risk despite the more noble goal of giving the world something of worth.
Finally, I can’t help but point out how you, Daniel, propose this idea of a better game from quite the position of privilege.
With all due respect, if you can bear my tickling, tenure is a pretty good net to bounce off when you’re not doing good at the game. You must agree that winning those few zero-sum games have their perks. Enjoy your risk-free endless fun — I know I would. 🙂
Hugh Howey *did* eat the lunch of some other authors; he did displace them, if not on shelves, at least on the market. He has not invented a whole new market (…)
But he did just that. The big publishers refuse to sell their ebooks for less than $10. Howey sold his ebooks for much less than that ($3 if I recall). Though I can afford $10 ebooks, I do not buy them. Many people are like me.
Sure, my time is limited… but my time spent reading fiction is quite elastic… it depends very much on the availability of great content. Otherwise I do other things…
I would not have been reading other books had I not purchased Howey’s ebooks.
But more generally, I think that many markets are highly elastic. When Harry Potter came out, it did not hurt other authors… it probably helped them because it brought a new generation of readers.
Science works this way. Einstein did not displace other physicists generally speaking. Sure, he did occupy one position at Princeton… but, on the whole, he probably helped create dozens of new jobs in physics.
The idea that the game of “great value generation†is open and welcoming is naive and disingenuous.
It is very hard to provide great value to others. But I am not sure that the other paths are easier for most.
Finally, I can’t help but point out how you, Daniel, propose this idea of a better game from quite the position of privilege. With all due respect, if you can bear my tickling, tenure is a pretty good net to bounce off when you’re not doing good at the game. You must agree that winning those few zero-sum games have their perks. Enjoy your risk-free endless fun — I know I would.
I genuinely believe that life is more fun when you try to provide value to others instead of focusing on glamour humping.
I agree that being a tenured college professor is a privilege. You can dismiss my message because of that… but I do not think it is fair.
Thank you, Daniel, for your long reply. It refutes the best parts of my comments convincingly and it underscores a bit of my own hypocrisy.
You are optimistic about market elasticity, but you are right. Opportunities do come to light, and often enough too. Also, now I better see your point that if somebody is going to compete somewhere, it best be in a useful contest in the first place. Your comment puts your post in a light that makes it more encouraging and uplifting than I first saw.
Finally, I certainly don’t dismiss your point out of your position of privilege. You’re not trying to sell snake oil, you well know that hidden opportunities are, until found, hidden and risky. I walk away agreeing that competing in the game of value generation is certainly fun. It is obvious from my post that I have burned out myself (in a small way — I got better), but I have come back into the game. While I play it more carefully, I’m having fun again. So acting all risk-averse and raining on your parade was disingenuous of me.
Your arguments were quite reasonable. My blog post could easily be misinterpreted because it was not as well written as it could have. (I should make it clear that I was not offended by your comment in the least.)
I think you have now nailed the message I wanted to share… On the long term, it is a lot more fun to focus on growing the size of the pie for everyone than to try a compete for scarce ressources…
Maximesays:
Thanks for this post. I’m a PhD student and I just had a paper rejected for the second time. This is a paper I really believed in. The rejection really hurt my motivation and my self-esteem as a computer scientist. It’s good to be reminded that conference rejections don’t necessarily mean that my work is worthless.
I know over a hundred people who make a living playing Starcraft or commenting Starcraft games. (I am sure their number is rather in the thousands.) The DOTA2 International, playing today (July 21, 2014) has a prize pool of almost 11 million dollars – http://www.dota2.com/international/overview/
None of these people displaced anybody – these are jobs that not only did not exist – they COULD NOT have existed 20 years ago.
In a big scheme of things, we are all nothing but a dust on the wind.
This interesting point of view confounds certain things about the allegorical game. Take the bit on Hugh Howey: while it’s true that library shelf space is not the contest that matters, there still was always a contest over people’s pocket money, and even, over people’s entertainment time and money. Hugh Howey *did* eat the lunch of some other authors; he did displace them, if not on shelves, at least on the market. He has not invented a whole new market, he just found a very good way to compete and win.
The idea that the game of “great value generation” is open and welcoming is naive and disingenuous. Of course, the cost of entry is not that high. Still, burning out remains easy to do and is a real risk despite the more noble goal of giving the world something of worth.
Finally, I can’t help but point out how you, Daniel, propose this idea of a better game from quite the position of privilege.
With all due respect, if you can bear my tickling, tenure is a pretty good net to bounce off when you’re not doing good at the game. You must agree that winning those few zero-sum games have their perks. Enjoy your risk-free endless fun — I know I would. 🙂
@Benoit
Hugh Howey *did* eat the lunch of some other authors; he did displace them, if not on shelves, at least on the market. He has not invented a whole new market (…)
But he did just that. The big publishers refuse to sell their ebooks for less than $10. Howey sold his ebooks for much less than that ($3 if I recall). Though I can afford $10 ebooks, I do not buy them. Many people are like me.
Sure, my time is limited… but my time spent reading fiction is quite elastic… it depends very much on the availability of great content. Otherwise I do other things…
I would not have been reading other books had I not purchased Howey’s ebooks.
But more generally, I think that many markets are highly elastic. When Harry Potter came out, it did not hurt other authors… it probably helped them because it brought a new generation of readers.
Science works this way. Einstein did not displace other physicists generally speaking. Sure, he did occupy one position at Princeton… but, on the whole, he probably helped create dozens of new jobs in physics.
The idea that the game of “great value generation†is open and welcoming is naive and disingenuous.
It is very hard to provide great value to others. But I am not sure that the other paths are easier for most.
Finally, I can’t help but point out how you, Daniel, propose this idea of a better game from quite the position of privilege. With all due respect, if you can bear my tickling, tenure is a pretty good net to bounce off when you’re not doing good at the game. You must agree that winning those few zero-sum games have their perks. Enjoy your risk-free endless fun — I know I would.
I genuinely believe that life is more fun when you try to provide value to others instead of focusing on glamour humping.
I agree that being a tenured college professor is a privilege. You can dismiss my message because of that… but I do not think it is fair.
Thank you, Daniel, for your long reply. It refutes the best parts of my comments convincingly and it underscores a bit of my own hypocrisy.
You are optimistic about market elasticity, but you are right. Opportunities do come to light, and often enough too. Also, now I better see your point that if somebody is going to compete somewhere, it best be in a useful contest in the first place. Your comment puts your post in a light that makes it more encouraging and uplifting than I first saw.
Finally, I certainly don’t dismiss your point out of your position of privilege. You’re not trying to sell snake oil, you well know that hidden opportunities are, until found, hidden and risky. I walk away agreeing that competing in the game of value generation is certainly fun. It is obvious from my post that I have burned out myself (in a small way — I got better), but I have come back into the game. While I play it more carefully, I’m having fun again. So acting all risk-averse and raining on your parade was disingenuous of me.
@Benoit
Your arguments were quite reasonable. My blog post could easily be misinterpreted because it was not as well written as it could have. (I should make it clear that I was not offended by your comment in the least.)
I think you have now nailed the message I wanted to share… On the long term, it is a lot more fun to focus on growing the size of the pie for everyone than to try a compete for scarce ressources…
Thanks for this post. I’m a PhD student and I just had a paper rejected for the second time. This is a paper I really believed in. The rejection really hurt my motivation and my self-esteem as a computer scientist. It’s good to be reminded that conference rejections don’t necessarily mean that my work is worthless.
@Maxime
Getting your paper accepted in a selective venue is not the definition of success. Not the one I use. Not the one you should use.
I recommend setting your eyes on the real prize: doing useful research.
You may also enjoy this post of mine:
Become independent of peer review
http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2009/10/26/become-independent-of-peer-review/
I know over a hundred people who make a living playing Starcraft or commenting Starcraft games. (I am sure their number is rather in the thousands.) The DOTA2 International, playing today (July 21, 2014) has a prize pool of almost 11 million dollars – http://www.dota2.com/international/overview/
None of these people displaced anybody – these are jobs that not only did not exist – they COULD NOT have existed 20 years ago.