This article has the right facts, but the wrong conclusion.
Shamelessness by itself won't take you anywhere.
Take the Paris Hilton story for example. It was never about Paris, but always about the public. A certain perception of her made the news, so she just played along and amplified.
Same for the Merlin-as-Percival tactic. Don't try it with a bunch of kids.
Since people here like to start companies: it's never about you, your idea or product. It's always about the others, their feelings, their perceptions, and how you are able to play along an amplify.
Isn’t that what he writes in the second to last paragraph?
> But one of the most bizarre aspects here is it doesn’t actually matter how aware that person is of what they’re doing. The concept of a “genius mastermind” is itself outdated, because it assumes that someone needs to be in control. The shameless person is simply a host for a set of ideas, which, like any virus, will continue to propagate as long as there are willing hosts to receive it.
I think this still sounds very negative, and what the author says is basically "It's not that the person is smart, it's that the followers are stupid". I don't agree with that.
For me, it's about public demand, and some smart person playing into it.
Shamelessness by itself won't take you anywhere.
Take the Paris Hilton story for example. It was never about Paris, but always about the public. A certain perception of her made the news, so she just played along and amplified.
Same for the Merlin-as-Percival tactic. Don't try it with a bunch of kids.
Since people here like to start companies: it's never about you, your idea or product. It's always about the others, their feelings, their perceptions, and how you are able to play along an amplify.