The Internet rewards unique people.
Find your unique combination of skills, interests, and personality traits.
I call this a Personal Monopoly.
Become the only person in the world who does what you do.
Then, tell the world by sharing your knowledge.
Focus on what the world wants too.
Think like an investor.
Find a small and growing market that only a few people write about. Then, learn everything you can about it, and share the best of what you learn.
Personal monopolies aren't found — they're made.
Global markets increase the upside of having a Personal Monopoly, but also make it harder to create one.
The sweet spot is finding an idea that looks specific to others, but still diverse enough to express the many shades of who you are, where you excel, and what you want to achieve.
Like fish in water, we don't know how to explain what we do so we depend on others to define our work for us. Listen to others describe your work. Then, double down on the best summaries.
In Personal Monopoly markets, just like cities, the biggest returns come in areas with increasing demand and restricted supply.
Here's my mini-essay.
"Your personal monopoly is out there, waiting for you, and magic will happen once you discover it. The way to do that is not to worry too much about it and focus on being prolific.” — @m_ashcroft
1) Complementary: Greater than the sum of its parts.
2) Unusual: A combination of skills rarely seen.
3) Experiential: Inspired by unique events in your life.
4) Specific: Niche topic where you have lots of knowledge.
Personal Monopolies are the antidote. Until you differentiate yourself, you’ll be subservient to the iron laws of supply and demand.
https://t.co/uEGXsB5BWl
The career path of a creator has three stages:
— David Perell (@david_perell) January 24, 2021
1) Discovery: Hone your craft and find the idea you want to be known for.
2) Income: Ditch the corporate world and become financially independent.
3) Equity: Get ownership in a business that\u2019ll grow without your daily involvement.
We spoke about:
∙ Communicating your Personal Monopoly
∙ Validating demand
∙ Lessons from @anafabrega11
∙ The DICE framework
∙ Becoming a citizen of the Internet
https://t.co/qmc31YEzSs
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
