Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43711
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Bloggers and vloggers by definition have an online platform on which they've built their success. Their input on the necessity of having an online platform is biased. **They cannot speak for all writers**. At best, they can speak for vloggers/bloggers.

Think of it this way: I'm trying to become a bodybuilder. With that goal in mind, I exercise daily, tell my wife I love her daily, and I drink three raw eggs for breakfast. Years down the line, I am a known bodybuilder, and people ask me on what I think aspiring bodybuilders need to do to get where I am.

And I tell them to exercise daily, drink three raw eggs for breakfast, and tell your spouse you love them daily.

However, did the raw eggs really matter? Can I really claim that these eggs are **required** to be sucessful? What about telling my wife I love her daily? Did that really contribute to my success, or is it just something I happened to do?

What's much more likely is that I'm reverse engineering my advice. I don't know that drinking the eggs or telling my wife I love her were necessary components to my success, but I think to myself "well, I drank those raw eggs and told my wife I love her; and I'm successful today, so I _assume_ that this _must have caused_ my success".

And that is a logical fallacy ([post hoc ergo propter hoc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc), "after this, therefore because of this").

What I would put a lot more stock in, is to hear this advice from writers who _did not_ have an online platform to launch their career, because these people may have a much more meaningful insight into what an online platform really adds to their popularity.  
But don't take their word for it either. People are always biased based on what they did(n't) do and whether they did(n't) end up being successful. But unless they can empirically prove their argument, it is nothing more than a **biased observation**.

Original score: 12