After my first 3 articles on Substack, I decided to change the whole theme and purpose of starting on Substack. The reason was I felt that nobody would ever want to ready about how I felt away from home, in a new country, became a mother without the “village”. It was basically my point of view that I had decided to share. But somehow after reading the daily notes and topics of articles that I find while scrolling were never about what I had stared to write. I felt I wasn’t writing what people want to read. So now I have a new author note ready to explain my new theme and start afresh. Do you think this is a mistake?
Thanks for this article that made me question my decision of changing the whole purpose of writing.
What you were writing about is a point of view. The issue isn’t that people don’t want it, it’s that it hasn’t found them yet. I’d rethink changing direction completely. Maybe adjust the framing, not the truth.
This is one of those pieces that sounds obvious after reading but isn’t practiced enough. Most people aren’t struggling with ideas, they’re filtering them too much. The line about “you’re not fully saying what you already know” is probably the real problem for most creators. Clarity is harder than creativity, and you’ve captured that well.
This explains why so much content feels familiar but forgettable. I’ve definitely found myself editing toward safety instead of truth, and it always shows in the final piece. The part about repeating ideas on purpose is something I used to resist, but now it makes sense. That’s how a voice becomes recognizable, not just readable.
That instinct to edit toward safety is so common, and honestly, it’s the hardest thing to unlearn. Most people don’t lack ideas, they soften them too much before publishing. Repetition is what brings the original thought back to its full strength over time.
This hits a nerve because it calls out something most people quietly sense but don’t articulate. The idea that consistency without positioning is just “noise on a schedule” is uncomfortable but accurate. What stood out most is how you framed point of view as something built, not possessed. That shift alone changes how people approach content entirely.
This article touches a psychological truth most people feel but rarely admit. Human beings are exhausted from consuming content that sounds correct but feels emotionally empty. Information alone does not create connection. People remember conviction, emotional honesty, lived experience, and the courage to say something real. A strong point of view is not arrogance.
It is alignment between what someone truly sees and what they are finally willing to express without hiding behind trends or borrowed language. Many people online are performing intelligence while suppressing their actual observations because belonging feels safer than honesty. That is why so much content disappears from memory within seconds.
The words may be useful, but the human being inside them feels absent.
One beautiful thing here is the reminder that clarity grows from observation, not performance. A person develops a voice when they stop asking, “What will work?” and begin asking, “What have I actually seen?” That question changes everything because truth carries emotional weight.
Repetition also matters more than people realize. Human beings trust patterns. When someone keeps returning to the same honest insight through different stories and experiences, people begin associating that idea with the person themselves.
Modern culture often rewards speed, novelty, and constant output, but real influence usually grows from consistency in truth, not consistency in posting. A meaningful voice is built slowly, through courage, self-awareness, and enough sincerity to let experience speak without polishing away its humanity.
You start right out losing me! I thought you might find it fascinating that I did a holy walk-about in India and ended up lost in the wilderness of Tibet. There I met the monks and got this incredible knowledge Renaissance that we desperately need.
For some reason I think the idea of a 100 lb aircraft that was very safe and cost under $1,000 to manufacture might excite India because of landslides. That might sound a bit strange but they have a lot of them and climate change is increasing them. When the roads end up being blocked it could be very useful to have a small safe aircraft that jumps people about.
I should brand it and try to figure out how to get it into production. I described it in detail to Google AI and was surprised that it spit out and elaborate business model which I immediately published on my page called Decoding science.
After my first 3 articles on Substack, I decided to change the whole theme and purpose of starting on Substack. The reason was I felt that nobody would ever want to ready about how I felt away from home, in a new country, became a mother without the “village”. It was basically my point of view that I had decided to share. But somehow after reading the daily notes and topics of articles that I find while scrolling were never about what I had stared to write. I felt I wasn’t writing what people want to read. So now I have a new author note ready to explain my new theme and start afresh. Do you think this is a mistake?
Thanks for this article that made me question my decision of changing the whole purpose of writing.
What you were writing about is a point of view. The issue isn’t that people don’t want it, it’s that it hasn’t found them yet. I’d rethink changing direction completely. Maybe adjust the framing, not the truth.
Thanks. This helps. 😊
This is one of those pieces that sounds obvious after reading but isn’t practiced enough. Most people aren’t struggling with ideas, they’re filtering them too much. The line about “you’re not fully saying what you already know” is probably the real problem for most creators. Clarity is harder than creativity, and you’ve captured that well.
I agree, and I think that filtering often comes from trying to sound right instead of being clear.
This explains why so much content feels familiar but forgettable. I’ve definitely found myself editing toward safety instead of truth, and it always shows in the final piece. The part about repeating ideas on purpose is something I used to resist, but now it makes sense. That’s how a voice becomes recognizable, not just readable.
That instinct to edit toward safety is so common, and honestly, it’s the hardest thing to unlearn. Most people don’t lack ideas, they soften them too much before publishing. Repetition is what brings the original thought back to its full strength over time.
This hits a nerve because it calls out something most people quietly sense but don’t articulate. The idea that consistency without positioning is just “noise on a schedule” is uncomfortable but accurate. What stood out most is how you framed point of view as something built, not possessed. That shift alone changes how people approach content entirely.
That’s exactly the tension I was trying to point at.Consistency isn’t wrong, it’s just incomplete on its own.
This article touches a psychological truth most people feel but rarely admit. Human beings are exhausted from consuming content that sounds correct but feels emotionally empty. Information alone does not create connection. People remember conviction, emotional honesty, lived experience, and the courage to say something real. A strong point of view is not arrogance.
It is alignment between what someone truly sees and what they are finally willing to express without hiding behind trends or borrowed language. Many people online are performing intelligence while suppressing their actual observations because belonging feels safer than honesty. That is why so much content disappears from memory within seconds.
The words may be useful, but the human being inside them feels absent.
One beautiful thing here is the reminder that clarity grows from observation, not performance. A person develops a voice when they stop asking, “What will work?” and begin asking, “What have I actually seen?” That question changes everything because truth carries emotional weight.
Repetition also matters more than people realize. Human beings trust patterns. When someone keeps returning to the same honest insight through different stories and experiences, people begin associating that idea with the person themselves.
Modern culture often rewards speed, novelty, and constant output, but real influence usually grows from consistency in truth, not consistency in posting. A meaningful voice is built slowly, through courage, self-awareness, and enough sincerity to let experience speak without polishing away its humanity.
You start right out losing me! I thought you might find it fascinating that I did a holy walk-about in India and ended up lost in the wilderness of Tibet. There I met the monks and got this incredible knowledge Renaissance that we desperately need.
For some reason I think the idea of a 100 lb aircraft that was very safe and cost under $1,000 to manufacture might excite India because of landslides. That might sound a bit strange but they have a lot of them and climate change is increasing them. When the roads end up being blocked it could be very useful to have a small safe aircraft that jumps people about.
I should brand it and try to figure out how to get it into production. I described it in detail to Google AI and was surprised that it spit out and elaborate business model which I immediately published on my page called Decoding science.
Hey — I came across your writing and really liked how you think.
I’m exploring something similar from a different angle — writing about human behavior through a system design lens (like debugging internal patterns).
Just started publishing on Substack. If you ever get a moment to read, I’d genuinely value your perspective.
Also happy to support your work — feels like there’s an interesting overlap here.
Linkedin is not the place to be right now.
People here use Claude, so?