|
|
|
|
|
|
by chris_f
2217 days ago
|
|
|
"On top of that, confidence is a big thing. What if my core hypothesis is flawed, or it's just a silly product? It's natural to want to innoculate yourself against criticism and rejection... That's a fundamental psychological feature of all nerds afterall." The trick is to remember that those responses are still better than the alternative of no one using your project or caring enough to provide any feedback. Users providing feedback is a good thing, even if it is negative. I post a lot about my side project here and on other forums. It would be great if everyone just knew about it and already decided if it was something that they were interested in or not, but I know only a small fraction of relevant users are even aware it exists. For me, it would be way worse to spend time building something that people might find beneficial but never got a chance to hear about, than sharing it and being criticized on the internet. |
|
|
Jokes aside, a large component of marketing is in aggregating opinion. The other half is the dark art we famously complain about.
Aggregating opinion at any level is hard work. And it's almost been elevated to a science now, so it has to be respected.
So to perform all that work to derive a conclusion which will most likely (given all that's known about the probability of start ups and success) prove you wrong, seems a perverse thing to do.
Masochistic, in fact.
I think it's easier to perform this work in the third person... It turns the dynamic on its head (like the schadenfreuder one might feel when working on a software project in the capicity of a QA tester). You're performing a clinical service.
But it takes some special effort to willingly put yourself through it...
I dunno.
I suppose I'll learn more if I just do it...