"give away your content instead of writing a book"
You've used quotation marks, but what you've but between them is not a quote. As I said before, giving away knowledge and selling knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe that textbooks are the only possible way to sell knowledge, there is no way to read the post as suggesting that selling knowledge instead of giving it away is verboten.
generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook.
First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them".
Secondly, nowhere doe he suggest giving away textbooks for free. You're grossly distorting the text by implying that. That he describes assigning a textbook as "academic malpractice" strongly indicates that his position is not that textbooks should be freely available.
So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct.
How is that relevant? I never disagreed with that assertion. Nor would I, because it is transparently obvious. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?
First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them".
Umm, he writes
"They are incredibly impractical. Not just in terms of the lessons taught, but in terms of being a reference book for years down the road....The solution seems simple to me. Professors should be spending their time devising pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them, then publishing them for free online. (it's part of their job, remember?) When you have a class to teach, assemble 100 of the best pieces, put them in a pdf or on a kindle or a website (or even in a looseleaf notebook) and there, you're done."
That explicitly states, instead of writing a text book - professors should publish their content for free, online.
Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?
You've missed my argument...
I'm saying that arguing that he doesn't practise what he's preaching, which makes him a hypocrite.
He plainly states (which I have quoted for you, verbatim since you can't seem to see it) that text books are impractical and that instead of writing a text book, those professors should put their content online for free.
You mentioned that there is nothing stopping professors publishing books, which I agree - there is not, yet Seth is saying that they shouldn't publish, instead give away their content online, for free as it's part of their job.
Yet, despite that, Seth is doing the complete opposite of what he's saying. The vast majority of his content isn't free - it's in a book that you buy, seminars that you attend or you can purchase his time in the form of consulting.
The fact that he occasionally blogs snippets of information is irrelevant, since you also agree that he uses the blog only as a marketing channel.
Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?
No, I think you perhaps don't quite understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. I'll paste a definition in for you.
Hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
There, by definition, a person who's actions belie states beliefs.
Seth believes that professors (who's job it is to impart knowledge) should give their content away online for free instead of writing a book is a hypocritical statement given part of his job is the imparting of knowledge. He does not give away all of his content online, for free, instead, it can be purchased in one of the many books he has for sale.
The fact that he's made this assertion that that content should be available online for free, instead of being purchased in a book is especially humorous when you see the adverts for his book just to the left of that exact same statement.
I'm saying that arguing that he doesn't practise what he's preaching
Your interpretation requires distorting his statements to mean something that they are not meant to mean. You're inserting exclusivity where none exist and exaggerating the use of specific words to mean more general things.
instead of writing a text book, those professors should put their content online for free
You're conflating textbooks with all possible ways of selling or distributing knowledge, which Seth is not. He is talking about textbooks specifically, nothing else. There is no ambiguity there, the whole post is about textbooks. He does not say to publish textbooks for free, but to publish something other than textbooks. He does not say that all books are bad, but that textbooks are bad. He does not say that people should not be allowed to profit from their work, but that doing so by selling textbooks is bad.
Your accusation of hypocricy only flies if you draw general conclusions from his specific statements.
you also agree that he uses the blog only as a marketing channel
I did not say that and do not believe that. You're being dishonest and distorting my words by inserting exclusivity where none exists. Please stop.
@yungchin - but teaching IS part of Seth's job, he gets paid to speak and to do consulting, just because the job title is different, doesn't necessarily mean aspects of the jobs are any different.
As for some textbooks being out of date, that is really a matter of context. For example, textbooks on marketing or other such fields that move fast there are definite advantages to having material that is up to date.
However, let's look at the flipside, textbooks on renaissance period art. There really isn't much that hasn't already been written on the subject, so there really is little point in having "up to date" materials when there are probably many definitive works on the subject.
I agree that there's little point in paying inordinate amounts for out of date text books that are assigned to you - but that being said, suggesting that those same people who write these books should distribute the same materials for free is also preposterous, given Seth himself doesn't do it.
If Seth gave away his books and focussed on making money from his speaking/workshop/consulting gigs, sure - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid, but the fact is he doesn't, so that part of his argument reeks of hypocrisy.
just because the job title is different, doesn't necessarily mean aspects of the jobs are any different.
Actually, I think you missed an essential point. In academia, publishing is usually a job requirement and key part of career advancement. This is what Seth means when he says it's part of their jobs. He is not saying it's part of their job just because they teach, there are plenty of people who teach things but are not required to publish.
distribute the same materials for free
Seth is not saying this. He is emphatically not suggesting that texbooks should be distributed for free. There is no "same materials" stated or implied.
1. I see your point about it coming down to his job definition - the question then is, is there a difference between consulting and being tenured?
2. I think it's not about books being out of date, it's about the ideas not originating from the authors. After giving that one some more thought, I think I disagree (if this is what Godin meant at all) that that makes a difference.
There's one essential difference between him and professors, noted subtly in the "it's part of their job, remember?" - he doesn't receive a teaching salary. Whether receiving public money should automatically mean that your writings should be freely available for all of the public is another discussion - the point is you can't really conclude he's a hypocrite.
The other point that's being made is that textbooks mostly consist of old knowledge, established long ago by other scholars. Godin sees a difference between selling new ideas and recycling old ideas. I'm not sure I completely agree with this train of thought - sometimes translating complicated academical concepts to make them accessible for students is quite an effort in its own right, and thus worth money - but I don't completely disagree either.
You've used quotation marks, but what you've but between them is not a quote. As I said before, giving away knowledge and selling knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe that textbooks are the only possible way to sell knowledge, there is no way to read the post as suggesting that selling knowledge instead of giving it away is verboten.
generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook.
First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them".
Secondly, nowhere doe he suggest giving away textbooks for free. You're grossly distorting the text by implying that. That he describes assigning a textbook as "academic malpractice" strongly indicates that his position is not that textbooks should be freely available.
So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct.
How is that relevant? I never disagreed with that assertion. Nor would I, because it is transparently obvious. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?