Fallacy of marginal cost when making decisions only applies when a fundamental shift has occurred. If no shift has occurred, making decisions solely on the comparison of marginal cost works.
That means when it comes to leveraging personal skills and connections, you should double down on what you’re good at if something fundamental about the environment hasn’t changed, whether this environment is distribution, relationships, technology, culture. But when it has changed, you need to take a deep breath and fully retool, and allow yourself the time and the mindset of a beginner in order to make the transition. That also means you need to save the money and create the environment so that you can do so.
How to tell if something fundamental about the environment has changed? It helps when you can extract the concept of something from the concrete something. For example, lots of front end frameworks proliferated in 2013, so lots of people felt like they couldn’t keep up. So they threw up their hands and would joke only the cool kids knew something new. The only way they could judge something was if it was new. You should only learn something if the underlying concept is something new to you. Concepts are an abstraction or generalization of how something works.
That’s why learning about something’s concept will go a long way. Knowing the how’s and whys of something, and finding a generalize-able abstraction will help you recognize shifts, so you can better make decisions in a changing world.
I got asked if I wanted to work on a Personal Relationship Manger. I politely declined, and wrote the reasons why:
On the technical side
if you’re going to be writing something to help do relationship management, it’d better be really constrained and focused in scope. Because we often use umbrella terms to mean different, but related things, it’s really easy to build assumptions into the software that doesn’t serve large segments of your users. For example, we built Noteleaf to cover ‘meetings’, but the workflow we had only meant to cover ‘coffee meetings between founders’. We had all sorts of people sign up for it that we weren’t built for, since they saw ‘meetings’, and thought it applied to them. As a result, we got a hodge-podge of user feedback that we couldn’t decipher at the time, because it was actually different segments of users having completely different needs and jobs to be done. That’s not to say it can’t be done in the near future. DNNs may be able to handle all the different variations of ‘meetings’, but that’s mostly just hand-waving on my part, than anything concrete.
On the business side
Most people don’t care enough about managing their personal relationships to pay for it, and hence, it’ll be really difficult to build a business on top of it. That’s why most relationship software are CRMs, as businesses care alot about knowing who their customers are and what they’ll buy. On the flip side, the closest we come to a personal relationship manager is facebook and other social networks. And even then, it’s not so much about the management (managing is work…no one want to do work), but getting news (pictures and text) about their friends. It seems like there’s a new social network about every 7 years or so. AOL IM ~1997, FB 2004, Instagram 2010/Snapchat 2011. 2018 might be ripe for another one. I’m not sure if it’s because teenagers don’t like being where the adults are or what, but that seems to happen. If you want to work on something related to personal relationship manager, I’d work on a new email (search for DotMail). People get tons of email and really hate their email client, and are excited for something that works better. You should really understand why people use email (i.e. people use it as a todo list rather than point to point messaging, or people use it to transfer files between their devices). before attempting it. However, be forewarned that email protocols are old and shitty to work with. It’s a lot of work to get something basic up and running.