I remember reading his books and thinking "This guy seems really insecure". The quote he opens the article does not surprise me at all - his books come across as if he really wants fame and is speaking to an audience who similarly needs to be smarter, more clever, richer, more loved.

However, I don't think this is unique to Tim Ferriss. I think this is the dynamic behind fame itself. People who are really secure in their worth don't spend their time looking for casual external validation from strangers, and they also don't spend their emotional energy idolizing strangers and distant figures. They spend it on their family and close friends, and seek it in return from those same people.

It's been interesting watching myself drop out of the popular discourse as I got more secure in myself and more inclined to spend time, money, and energy close to home. Pop culture isn't made for us, because who got time for that shit? Crass consumerism isn't made for us, because we don't spend money on things we don't need in an effort to feel better about ourselves. Most of the transactions that make modern America go don't make us go, because, well, if you're happy with yourself then why do you need them?

But I'm glad I realized that before getting famous. Because there was a time, in my teens and twenties, when I wanted nothing more than to be adored by the masses. And like Tim Ferriss says, there isn't always a reset button where you can suddenly become un-famous if it becomes too much of a drag.

4 hour work week, rich dad poor dad, get rich quick books are nothing but trash but somehow they became best sellers.

I personally have a hard time taking anyone seriously who claim things like "4 hour work week". It is a mockery of every real successful person who has worked extremely hard especially early on and it sets a dangerous expectations/entitlement among young people. Unless you are a trust fund baby, you are not going to live a good life by working 4 hour work weeks especially in your younger years. You just won't.

The fact is that if you want to live a good life, you have to grind it out in your early years. Not saying everyone has to grind the startup culture or 80 hour week but thinking that you can swing a 4 hour workweek at 25 is just idiotic and not realistic.

Is that right? I had no idea this was the core thesis of that guy’s book! I just assumed it was an “automate the boring stuff, get organized and delegate” kind of platitudes. If he’s part of the movement that has people ripping off employers and their co-workers like that then, frankly, screw him.

Wow, I feel uneasy about your comment and then the host of comments piling on that are basically "Yeah, Tim Ferris is actually a shitty guy!!"

Mainly, I can accept literally everything you say is true (and to be clear I don't know, but they all seem quite to be reasonable assertions), but more importantly, I think they're pretty irrelevant to the point of this blog post. Yes, Tim Ferris craved fame (he literally says that in his post), and I'm sure he tried to "hack" his way get it, but I still think his experiences and lessons about the pitfalls of fame are informative and interesting. I also don't agree with your statement "His experience with uncomfortable fan obsessions is therefore probably on the next level, but not exactly typical fame." His post goes in detail about a number of colleagues, especially women, who were stalked, one of whom had her house broken into by an intruder who tried to murder her husband before he was killed in a shootout with police. So yeah, I think his warnings about fame can apply to a broad swath of people who aren't self-help gurus.

If your comment was in response to a "4-hour work week"-y type post, and you just wanted to point out it was BS by highlighting specific problems with its advice, I'd agree. In response to this post, though, it just feels unnecessarily and deliberately schadenfreude-y.

> outsource their work to low paid overseas assistants

Literally every business is based on the idea of tacking on a margin onto someone else's work and profiting from it. Markets are based on imperfect information distribution at the end of the day.

It's likely the very company he'd be doing that too is already doing the exact same thing with their customer support (or "success" as they call it now), and their subcontractors themselves outsource various jobs. But I guess we've been conditioned to accept that as good because the boss is pocketing the difference, vs the lowly employee.

> only responding to your coworkers once a week

I struggle to think there is a company in the world where this kind of behavior would fly, but if there is then they must be satisfied with the work (or lack thereof I guess) and so in that case is it any worse than just slacking off at work and browsing HN for that matter?

---

Now should you do this? No, but not because you should feel bad for anyone. You should not do it because it's really hard to find someone good enough (and cheap enough) to deliver the same kind of quality you do and worthy of trusting them with your reputation. But if you know a magical place where to find such unicorns, go right ahead!

> So his relationship with his fans isn’t typical fame in the style of a celebrity or actor. He’s more of an early self-help guru who embraced social media and blogging early on. His experience with uncomfortable fan obsessions is therefore probably on the next level, but not exactly typical fame.

I think your framing is outdated. It sounds more like his relationship with his fans anticipated how “fame” is typically thought of today. Remix this entire comment with Mr. Beast as the subject and see if that helps my point.

Edit:

He even says himself:

> [...] I’m not really famous. Beyoncé and Brad Pitt are truly famous. They cannot walk around in public anywhere in the world. I am a micro public figure with a monthly audience in the millions or tens of millions. There are legions of people on Instagram alone with audiences of this size. New platforms offer new speed. Some previous unknowns on TikTok, for example, have attracted millions of followers in a matter of weeks.

So maybe not quite Mr. Beast level even...but certainly in that vein albeit a few degrees below.

Wasn't he also encouraging people to do medical tests on themselves and take acid to work / regular life for a while?

Oh. That kind of "famous".

I wish I was brave enough to try to get away with soemthing like that though.

This is spot on. I was an impressionable young male that loved that book and took to heart the ideas. Looking back it’s a mixed bag - the ideas teach you about delegation and thinking like an owner, but the bigger message that work sucks and you should figure out how to avoid it kinda hurts people who would be more ambitious.

An OG “digital nomad blogger bro” that took it all the way to the top!

At the end of the day his voice is a refreshing twist and a net positive but with a ton of caveats.

> So, his experience is probably well outside the norm.

Absolutely not. I've been a minor OSS celebrity for a while and even on that scale, it attracted a good number online stalkers and harassers.

Basically, if you're ever "newspaper famous", there will be completely unhinged people convinced that you're the one talking to them through their microwave, as well as rational people who make it their life mission to follow your around and "expose" you / put you down, simply because they think they deserved the limelight more than you.

Plenty of celebrities that have nothing to do with self-help also attract their share of mentally ill folks, so I'm not sure that he's as far out of the norm as you think.

A few folks in my social circles are _very_ minor public figures, more in the vein of "occasionally does a talking head segment on CNN" than "wins an Oscar" and even many of them have had to deal with obsessive attention from the unwell, threats, and people assuming they're rich and begging for money.

When you make self-help content don’t be surprised when you attract people that need help.

I think the general idea is sound, although I have changed my mind with our current economic system where one needs to fend for his own with no safety net. I mean upon seeing Chris Rock say in an interview saying that he would be willing to kill to become famous, I am reconsidering this issue.I refused once an opportunity to act with some big shot crew saying that I would not tolerate people and the way they deal with well-known, famouse people. I could not imagine how I could deal with the pressure. Now after 60 I am just looking back at missed opportunities but still content that 'I did it my way', and hope my children would have better future.

Dealing with crazy people must really cut into his four hour work week.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that all the comments here about "normal non-self help guru celebrities don't get stalked as much" are from men. I think literally every woman who is even semi-moderately in the public eye has stories about stalkers, regular death threats and rape fantasies, etc.

Glad to hear other commenters are pushing back against this proposition that Ferris is somehow a special case, because it's a story I've heard from lots and lots of people in the public eye, regardless of their area of expertise.

I make content and have a following that's ~1/10th the size of what he claims to have in this 2020 post, and I have had, within a rounding error, zero percent of the crazy encounters he had. YMMV. If I were a political influencer or a self-help guru, yes probably that would be different, but audience selection effects are a real factor here.

This article always strikes me as insane because he -- a famous person with a history of serious mental illness and suicidal thoughts which he's discussed publicly -- has a moderately bad encounter with a person on the internet and decide that he now needs to purchase a firearm and carry it with him in public.

A lot of people are reasonably well-known in certain circles because of some show, podcast, book, etc. that's become something of a hit often with some calculated controversy. And, as you say, collects something of a following.

There are also a ton of people who have never especially groomed the mass market though they're pretty well known in their industry.

Run any popular web community and you’ll see the amount of craze. Got some random guy sending 100+ emails that will sue and will talk to USA gov because I break the law - for putting ads on my website.

Nope.

Becoming well known even in a smallish circle of a few hundred or thousand people will likely immediately lead to stalkers and crazies coming out after you. My theory is they are directly drawn to people who make some sort of splash, for whatever reason, even if it’s local and small.

What is the normal experience for a famous person?

While it’s possible that being famous for producing self help content does draw more crazies to you it certainly seems like crazies are drawn to famous regardless of what people are famous for.

Like John Lennon just made music and he got shot and killed for it. Jodie Foster naively signed up for an erotic role in a movie and was stalked for it.

It's not hard to see how celebrities become out of touch so quickly if you have an ounce of empathy.

I could have asked ChatGPT myself.

the idea of the tribe/village/city is a model that he stole from the book "Blitzscaling" by Reed Hoffman, I guess?

Or did Hoffmann steal from Ferriss?

Ironically I've only ever heard of him because this blog post was previously on HN.

...that guy was in the throes of a psychotic episode [1]:

  The long and full apology is inserted below. [...] He (?) also says he suffers from schizophrenia.
  I’m happy for “Al” that he’s getting help and tries to move on. For me, this apology at least finally proves that this threat is over and in fact never was intended literally. I hope I will never receive anything close to that again.

  The apology in full
  I am Al Nocai. When I contacted you initially, I believed you to be a Dan E., from texas, or a Dan S from delaware or a Dan from Minneapolis. I didn’t do my research, and when I found it was actually you and you had nothing to do with my situation, I became indignant and even more of an asshole. You had every right to be mad, and publish as you did. I’m not trying to justify what I did, there is none, I should have been a lot more cordial. I just want to provide context around what was happening, I believe I at least owe you why.
  I had to retire from my career do to schizophrenia. Again, I should have not let my delusions go to the point they did nor should I have acted the way it does. My illness doesn’t detract from the rashness of my actions.

It's not a bad book. https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Workweek-Escape-Live-Anywhere/dp...

It's mostly about starting a small business by someone who'd started a small business selling nutritional supplements.

I was a big fan of NH until 3.6, now it is too difficult so I switched to Evilhack which has been a breath of fresh air.

It's raining men! And downvotes from them!

I don’t think that’s an accurate summary of his situation. He didn’t just make a single comment that marked him for life. He’s been doubling down for years and seems to be constantly running head-first into drama.

I didn’t have any opinions on his as a person other than enjoying some of his comics years ago. Then he started showing up in Twitter debates over and over again and there’s no erasing years of bizarre claims and statements from his public opinion. He’s definitely embracing his fame as a platform to push those views, not suffering victimization for one mistake years ago.

> Take Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, as an example. He made some racist remarks, a mistake he could’ve recovered from if he wasn’t famous. But because he is, he’s now marked for life, and there's no do-over.

From my echo chamber, I would rather claim that by these "politically incorrect" remarks and the controversies following it, he rather got a second wave of fans.

Doomed for life, lol. The point of putting yourself out there is to show the world who you are, so you can connect with the right people. He showed the world a bit more, and better targeted his group of people. I bet there are plenty of people that still connect with him.

Recent examples rather show that you might be marked for life but most people don’t care how racist you are.

> he’s now marked for life, and there's no do-over.

sincere apologies, show of remorse, and substantially + genuinely changing the toxic behaviors goes a long way. there are several celebrities who have done "unforgivable" things and yet been forgiven by the public. the problem is that the kind of person liable to make such remarks is not the kind of person likely to do some introspection to realize they're being a terrible person.

Dude did not just make one racist comment. I’ve read some of his books and they’re dripping with racism. He’s been consistently racist for decades and still is.

I disagree with this framing, but I do think it's a relevant example - being famous seems to change the math on "changing your mind" for some people.

If Scott Adams had said some racist things at a work dinner, gotten written up, maybe he'd have moved past it... but now being Controversial™ is a core part of his brand, he's doubled down and doubled down...

Uh, no. Scott Adams is not a one-mistake person. This is a years-and-years thing.

You're really rewriting history, here.

I have no problems forgiving people for mistakes, but no this is absolutely not one of those cases.

You're projecting. He is not marked for life: it's YOU who thinks he is.

Not him. He doesn't care what some clown online thinks of him.

I mean common. The supposed marked for life people are coming back again and again. Even or especially when the supposed mistake is genuine ideological convinction they are actively propagating.

Adams mistaken remarks included holocaust denial.

> He made some racist remarks, a mistake he could’ve recovered from if he wasn’t famous.

My knowledge of the USA is imperfect. Certain stereotypes of the USA from the perspective of Americans do make it across the Atlantic to here. Are they correct or incorrect when they say the worse part of Thanksgiving is having to meet the racist in-laws?

Unless that stereotype is completely invented (and I accept that it might be, after all the UK had Boris Johnson), then "could've" doesn't imply "would've".

> I remember HN back then was all entrepreneurs like me and everyone was excited about the free market. I feel like now a lot of people in countries with too much government regulations are here and are downers to people who want to build their own thing.

Since I am perhaps such a "downer person" who lives in such a country: what should such people then do?

>My business now employs 250 full time people

You sure about that?