I would say I probably agree with your opinions about 50% of the time. When we disagree, I find myself rolling my eyes constantly. When we agree, I'm sharing the post with any friend that might have even a tangential interest. I don't know if that means you're doing something right, but it is probably evidence of being "contrarian".
But the work is always thought provoking. And, I feel like this is one of the few places I can find that type of challenge.
I would say this to anybody that writes on Substack. Write interesting and unique stuff and people will read it, I'm pretty conservative but subscribe to Freddie De Boer because his columns on mental health and education are interesting and thought provoking. Intelligent people understand that we do not have to agree about every single thing. Different and authentic is the separator. Anybody can say wild stuff but its obvious when you read the columns whether or not they actually believe what they are saying.
I am extremely wary of giving interviews where I have no editorial influence or control. Always have been. I've also been very wary of the taping of my public talks and performaces. Twenty-five years of being onstage and you won't find much of it online.
Good mindset to have this, personally find the idea of getting wound up by randoms on Twitter strange really, just be yourself and back yourself, your abilities and your belief system and generally you'll be fine, if you say something that pisses someone off don't do the desperate apology crap that so many do to placate people who largely never liked you nor never will
Basically, be more like Bill Maher who doesn't mind pissing people off who think like him if they're being idiots, instead of a John Oliver or Trevor Noah who plays up to the idiots to get easy wins and kudos in their circles
"I have either a great or a terrible reputation, depending on where you hear it from."
I've been reading you since the "Nike's End of Men" essay, and you seem interesting and not crazy to me. There've been things I've thought you're wrong about, but nothing that seemed stupid or insane. The interesting thing about you having written a lot online is that, whether your reputation is great or terrible, people can just go to the source and read, or listen, for themselves.
Paul Graham has an amusing tactic with some of his detractors who are also poor readers (https://jakeseliger.com/2022/01/31/most-people-dont-read-carefully-or-for-comprehension/), in which he asks: "Can you cite a sentence I've written that says what you say I've said?" They almost never can. Many people are reading for mood affiliation, not comprehension, sadly.
Great column and advice. I can't tell you how many people I've discovered and initially admired, only to subsequently lose all admiration due to their incessant sparring on twitter over nonsense. There are no winners in that game.
Excellent article and great rules to live by. Although I don't always agree with Ethan, I respect his well-reasoned takes and fresh perspectives, and his avoidance of mindless partisanism.
The rule about staying off Twitter is salient to me - the moment I left Twitter my mental health improved dramatically. It is impossible to convey nuance or complexity on Twitter. It is basically the end-state of soundbite crossed with lowest common denominator, and that makes it a toxic sludgepit. It might be fine if you enjoy meming or trolling, but not for me.
And then there's the apoliticism rule. Since modern politics has descended into mindless tribalism - red vs blue, as if that means anything - it is best avoided if at all possible. I am passionate about issues and policy, but that doesn't mean I want any part of the broken, two-party system.
The "never Tweet" thing goes both ways too. I've recently reduced my follower count to 4, yes 4 people (Ethan you are not one of the 4 but Myles Brown is) because I was also becoming very annoyed with people I agree with. There's definitely examples like the one you gave with your friend and Jordan Peterson, but I also have times where I discover someone, look them up on Twitter, and they're incessantly tweeting about politics or trending topics and its just too much even if I agree with the position they're taking. Twitter is just the most toxic place and the more you can remove Twitter from this substack the better.
Also a thought on your Jordan Peterson comment. I'm not sure that is the most apt comparison. I think as a sports aficionado, you are a bit insulated from the political food fight.
Jason Whitlock, I believe summed it up best (a man with more than his fare share of controversy). Whitlock once said in an interview "The two most inclusive environments are 'Sports' and 'The Military'".
So, I'm not sure people really care what your political affiliation is or is not, since your angle is always from the sports industry perspective. Sports provides more diverse thoughts than politics. I think you mentioned this diversity of thought in on one of your podcasts, as well.
So, whether you are really that effective at hiding your political affiliation/leanings I don't think most of your readers really care. We don't come to you for your politics, but rather your interesting sports takes, (that frequently do intersect with politics), but, still.
Delighted to learn I'm on the Strausses baseball team! I play left field and will surprise you with my throws to the plate. IRL I was always relegated to second base due to my height (think: Kevin Hart). So this opportunity is an absolute thrill. Wait, do we have to bat as well? Can we bring back the DH, por favor? I don't know who the Strausses play, but I presume they throw curve balls and I cannot see seams. And I want to play. Not necessarily a starter, but at least play enough to throw out one runner at the plate.
Jujitsu politics at its finest! If you had a dollar for every reader that said he assumes he’s more liberal than most of your readers.... would those dollars add up to a good month on HoS? 😆
As a fellow contrarian I would add one more important pillar: always steelman the opposing argument. Twitter is not the platform for addressing counter arguments for many reasons, e.g., algorithmic disincentives, low character counts, but to develop coherent contrarian positions you have to consider opposing positions. First, for your own mental health, but second, and arguably more importantly, so you do not develop ideological blind spots.
The fundamental risk of being a contrarian is that you become unprincipled in your views and incapable of conceding bad arguments.
Have you connected with Oliver Bateman, the leporized Aimee Terese’s former co-host? Worth a conversation on this topic though perhaps there’s be no friction to get the heat going.
I would say I probably agree with your opinions about 50% of the time. When we disagree, I find myself rolling my eyes constantly. When we agree, I'm sharing the post with any friend that might have even a tangential interest. I don't know if that means you're doing something right, but it is probably evidence of being "contrarian".
But the work is always thought provoking. And, I feel like this is one of the few places I can find that type of challenge.
I would say this to anybody that writes on Substack. Write interesting and unique stuff and people will read it, I'm pretty conservative but subscribe to Freddie De Boer because his columns on mental health and education are interesting and thought provoking. Intelligent people understand that we do not have to agree about every single thing. Different and authentic is the separator. Anybody can say wild stuff but its obvious when you read the columns whether or not they actually believe what they are saying.
great advice. i follow some of these. not others :)
I am extremely wary of giving interviews where I have no editorial influence or control. Always have been. I've also been very wary of the taping of my public talks and performaces. Twenty-five years of being onstage and you won't find much of it online.
Good mindset to have this, personally find the idea of getting wound up by randoms on Twitter strange really, just be yourself and back yourself, your abilities and your belief system and generally you'll be fine, if you say something that pisses someone off don't do the desperate apology crap that so many do to placate people who largely never liked you nor never will
Basically, be more like Bill Maher who doesn't mind pissing people off who think like him if they're being idiots, instead of a John Oliver or Trevor Noah who plays up to the idiots to get easy wins and kudos in their circles
"I have either a great or a terrible reputation, depending on where you hear it from."
I've been reading you since the "Nike's End of Men" essay, and you seem interesting and not crazy to me. There've been things I've thought you're wrong about, but nothing that seemed stupid or insane. The interesting thing about you having written a lot online is that, whether your reputation is great or terrible, people can just go to the source and read, or listen, for themselves.
When this was happening: https://nypost.com/2022/06/09/washington-post-staffers-fume-at-reporter-felicia-sonmez-over-twitter-battles/, for example, it was possible to read the source material and determine that the person involved was, in fact, nuts. The most interesting question was rarely asked during that fracas: is her being nuts a one-off (every industry has its occasional lunatic) or emblematic of the larger whole?
Paul Graham has an amusing tactic with some of his detractors who are also poor readers (https://jakeseliger.com/2022/01/31/most-people-dont-read-carefully-or-for-comprehension/), in which he asks: "Can you cite a sentence I've written that says what you say I've said?" They almost never can. Many people are reading for mood affiliation, not comprehension, sadly.
Great column and advice. I can't tell you how many people I've discovered and initially admired, only to subsequently lose all admiration due to their incessant sparring on twitter over nonsense. There are no winners in that game.
Excellent article and great rules to live by. Although I don't always agree with Ethan, I respect his well-reasoned takes and fresh perspectives, and his avoidance of mindless partisanism.
The rule about staying off Twitter is salient to me - the moment I left Twitter my mental health improved dramatically. It is impossible to convey nuance or complexity on Twitter. It is basically the end-state of soundbite crossed with lowest common denominator, and that makes it a toxic sludgepit. It might be fine if you enjoy meming or trolling, but not for me.
And then there's the apoliticism rule. Since modern politics has descended into mindless tribalism - red vs blue, as if that means anything - it is best avoided if at all possible. I am passionate about issues and policy, but that doesn't mean I want any part of the broken, two-party system.
The first four rules are also great for management, especially in 2022.
The "never Tweet" thing goes both ways too. I've recently reduced my follower count to 4, yes 4 people (Ethan you are not one of the 4 but Myles Brown is) because I was also becoming very annoyed with people I agree with. There's definitely examples like the one you gave with your friend and Jordan Peterson, but I also have times where I discover someone, look them up on Twitter, and they're incessantly tweeting about politics or trending topics and its just too much even if I agree with the position they're taking. Twitter is just the most toxic place and the more you can remove Twitter from this substack the better.
Also a thought on your Jordan Peterson comment. I'm not sure that is the most apt comparison. I think as a sports aficionado, you are a bit insulated from the political food fight.
Jason Whitlock, I believe summed it up best (a man with more than his fare share of controversy). Whitlock once said in an interview "The two most inclusive environments are 'Sports' and 'The Military'".
So, I'm not sure people really care what your political affiliation is or is not, since your angle is always from the sports industry perspective. Sports provides more diverse thoughts than politics. I think you mentioned this diversity of thought in on one of your podcasts, as well.
So, whether you are really that effective at hiding your political affiliation/leanings I don't think most of your readers really care. We don't come to you for your politics, but rather your interesting sports takes, (that frequently do intersect with politics), but, still.
Delighted to learn I'm on the Strausses baseball team! I play left field and will surprise you with my throws to the plate. IRL I was always relegated to second base due to my height (think: Kevin Hart). So this opportunity is an absolute thrill. Wait, do we have to bat as well? Can we bring back the DH, por favor? I don't know who the Strausses play, but I presume they throw curve balls and I cannot see seams. And I want to play. Not necessarily a starter, but at least play enough to throw out one runner at the plate.
Jujitsu politics at its finest! If you had a dollar for every reader that said he assumes he’s more liberal than most of your readers.... would those dollars add up to a good month on HoS? 😆
As a fellow contrarian I would add one more important pillar: always steelman the opposing argument. Twitter is not the platform for addressing counter arguments for many reasons, e.g., algorithmic disincentives, low character counts, but to develop coherent contrarian positions you have to consider opposing positions. First, for your own mental health, but second, and arguably more importantly, so you do not develop ideological blind spots.
The fundamental risk of being a contrarian is that you become unprincipled in your views and incapable of conceding bad arguments.
Have you connected with Oliver Bateman, the leporized Aimee Terese’s former co-host? Worth a conversation on this topic though perhaps there’s be no friction to get the heat going.
I really appreciate these guidelines. Thank you Ethan.