A few days ago, I bought the Cal Newport book Deep Work, about the benefits of intense focus on the work you’re doing: that means no responding to Slack messages as you’re in the middle of writing a report, no checking Twitter group chats to see if any of your colleagues have shared anything useful or interesting, no leaving your email client open and habitually checking, reading, and writing emails, and so on.
You are definitely on to something. My most popular posts all have a fun/historical/factual slant to them, while the persuasive ones tend to lag in views. I think maybe it is because persuasive articles (especially on divisive subjects) tend to polarize your audience. The ones who agree with the position beforehand, will read it, if for nothing else than to get their confirmation bias scratched. Most of the ones who don't agree with the position have psychological defense mechanisms triggered, preventing them from engaging, accepting or sharing. Just guessing though...
What is one to do, indeed? Perhaps the way forward would be to write a piece that leans toward what your readers find enjoyable (anecdotes, etc.) yet have a good quantity of footnotes and links to studies which support your thesis. The readers who want a quick overview get what they want, but those who want a deep dive get a curated bibliography of what's out there. I also read "Deep Work" and like you, I think I already agreed with Newport's premise - but "deep work" can look different to different people, and for some people, probably isn't necessary. It seems to me that most advice under the broad umbrella of "personal growth" - hints for more productive work sessions, books aimed at business leaders, personal finance books, etc. - really should be marketed like non-traditional medicine - "this works for me, it might work for you."
The "spiritual medicine" crowd and the "business grindset" crowd do not overlap in terms of audience, but they do in their central thesis of health + self-management. But neither will be serious about treatment effectiveness.
There is a dual problem of family doctors over-prescribing addictive junk ("pop" self-help gurus) and R&D labs demonstrating impractical cures (social science research).
You are definitely on to something. My most popular posts all have a fun/historical/factual slant to them, while the persuasive ones tend to lag in views. I think maybe it is because persuasive articles (especially on divisive subjects) tend to polarize your audience. The ones who agree with the position beforehand, will read it, if for nothing else than to get their confirmation bias scratched. Most of the ones who don't agree with the position have psychological defense mechanisms triggered, preventing them from engaging, accepting or sharing. Just guessing though...
What is one to do, indeed? Perhaps the way forward would be to write a piece that leans toward what your readers find enjoyable (anecdotes, etc.) yet have a good quantity of footnotes and links to studies which support your thesis. The readers who want a quick overview get what they want, but those who want a deep dive get a curated bibliography of what's out there. I also read "Deep Work" and like you, I think I already agreed with Newport's premise - but "deep work" can look different to different people, and for some people, probably isn't necessary. It seems to me that most advice under the broad umbrella of "personal growth" - hints for more productive work sessions, books aimed at business leaders, personal finance books, etc. - really should be marketed like non-traditional medicine - "this works for me, it might work for you."
The "spiritual medicine" crowd and the "business grindset" crowd do not overlap in terms of audience, but they do in their central thesis of health + self-management. But neither will be serious about treatment effectiveness.
There is a dual problem of family doctors over-prescribing addictive junk ("pop" self-help gurus) and R&D labs demonstrating impractical cures (social science research).