I was listening to David Perrell interview Tiago Forte. They were talking about a reference to James Clear’s course, The Habits Academy, on the dust jacket of Atomic Habits. One of them pointed out that Clear’s course is entirely online, but that Clear never describes it as an “online” course. It’s taken for granted that the content will be delivered online, but “online” isn’t added as a qualifier.
This caught my attention. It made me realize that I tend to look down my nose at writing “online” and at “online” courses. Why? I don’t know exactly. But I see that I have a prejudice in favor of print and in-person instruction.
I’m not saying that the prejudice is right, good, helpful, or defensible. I’m just saying I have it.
In fact, I don’t think that the prejudice against “online” communication is any of those things. Once I examine it, I think it’s whacky.
So much good stuff comes to me online. Seth Godin. Austin Kleon. Not to mention the interview that sparked this post.
If people weren’t publishing material online, I’d be missing out on insights and connections I enjoy.
What happens if I set that prejudice aside? If I stop thinking of things as “online,” and merely as things worth reading, hearing, and thinking about?