Thread by @johncutlefish

This is an important distinction

There are "frameworks" that

1) evolved from active practice in the field.

2) are attempts to frame lots of experience (e.g. based on the messy world I've seen, there are three categories of X)

And 3) pure teaching frameworks.

(1/n)

One is not better/worse, but they are different.

1. has been "tested" in context. That context is important

2. very much depends on the "observer", the collector of experiences. In some ways these are theoretical constructs.

3. needs the learning context outlined

(2/n)

Some of the most popular/helpful product blogposts of all time fit into the #2 cat. @reforge is incredible at this. They get product leaders together, and together write a post that presents a new model!

There's a hint of #3 in there as well.

The courses incorporate #1

(3/n)

@lennysan artfully supports a community that shares #1 stuff, and writes posts that combine #1 material into sort of "meta overviews" ... how a bunch of companies approach X.

To make sense of all the feedback, he offers #2 models as summaries.

(4/n)

@shreyas is a genius at #2 content ... pondering his whole career and synthesizing what he has learned into highly approachable and memorable models.

I'm guessing that in his super follower community he'll share more of the "juicy" experiences (#1)

The point here is that it is all useful. But it is important to know what you are dealing with!

For #1 content ... the stories are essential. Without them, you have nothing.

For #2, context about observer

For #3 ... context about learning goal