Sponsor: Solo Summit by Lettuce — A free one-day virtual event for solopreneurs. 11 masterclass sessions with real outputs: a financial plan, an AI workflow, a client pipeline. Not motivation. Tools. Register free.

You’ve built a hierarchy in your head where the exciting work sits at the top and the boring work sits at the bottom. The hierarchy is inverted. The boring stuff holds everything up. Remove it and the exciting stuff collapses.

Nobody posts about their bookkeeping on Instagram.

Nobody makes a podcast episode about how they reconciled their invoices on a Tuesday afternoon. Nobody tweets about the 15 minutes they spent reviewing their calendar for the week. Nobody writes a LinkedIn post about the monthly budget check that prevented a cash flow crisis they’ll never know about because they prevented it.

The boring work is invisible. And because it’s invisible, we treat it like it’s unimportant.

We’ve built a hierarchy. At the top: the exciting stuff. The big idea. The creative breakthrough. The product launch. The keynote speech. The viral moment. The deal that changes everything. This is the work we celebrate. The work we aspire to. The work we post about.

At the bottom: the boring stuff. The systems. The budgets. The follow-up emails. The invoicing. The pipeline tracking. The weekly review. The financial planning. Nobody celebrates this work. Nobody aspires to it. Nobody posts about it.

Here’s what I’ve learned after interviewing over 800 people who’ve built something meaningful: the hierarchy is inverted. The boring stuff isn’t at the bottom. It’s the load-bearing wall. Everything exciting you’ve ever built is just paint on top of it. And paint without a wall is just a puddle on the floor.

The Load-Bearing Wall

In construction, a load-bearing wall is the wall that holds the building up. It’s not the most beautiful part of the structure. It’s not the feature wall. It’s not the kitchen or the view or the thing the realtor points to during the open house. But if you remove it, the building collapses.

Every area of your life has a load-bearing wall. The boring, invisible, unglamorous work that holds everything else up.

In your health, the load-bearing wall isn’t the marathon. It’s the three workouts a week that you do whether you feel like it or not. The marathon is paint. It’s the visible, exciting, Instagrammable event that sits on top of hundreds of boring Tuesday gym sessions. Remove the Tuesday sessions and the marathon doesn’t happen. But nobody posts about Tuesday at the gym.

In your relationship, the load-bearing wall isn’t the proposal or the anniversary trip or the grand gesture. It’s the Tuesday night dinner where nothing special happens. The morning coffee where you just talk. The random Wednesday where you actually pay attention when they tell you about their day. That’s the wall. The trips and the milestones and the celebrations are paint. Beautiful paint. But paint.

In your career, the load-bearing wall isn’t the promotion or the big deal or the keynote. It’s the daily habits that made you undeniable. The follow-up emails. The preparation before meetings. The skill you practiced when nobody was watching. The work that didn’t feel like progress but was.

In your wealth, the load-bearing wall isn’t the big investment or the windfall or the deal of a lifetime. It’s the monthly savings transfer. The boring, automatic, unsexy act of moving money into an account you don’t touch. Do it for 20 years and you’re wealthy. Skip it to chase exciting investments and you’re broke.

We know this intuitively. We just don’t act on it. Because the paint is more fun than the wall. The exciting work gets attention. The boring work gets ignored. And we’ve built our entire value system around the wrong one.

Why We Get the Hierarchy Wrong

There’s a reason we overvalue the exciting and undervalue the boring. The exciting work gives you immediate feedback. You launch something and people react. You give a speech and people applaud. You close a deal and the number in your bank account changes. The feedback loop is tight. You did a thing, something happened, you feel good.

The boring work has no feedback loop. You reconcile your invoices and nothing happens. You review your budget and nothing happens. You do the Tuesday workout and you look exactly the same. You have the Tuesday dinner with your partner and nobody gives you an award for showing up.

The absence of feedback tricks your brain into thinking the work doesn’t matter. So you skip it. You do more of the exciting work because it feels productive. It feels like it’s moving the needle. And you ignore the boring work because it feels like standing still.

But the boring work isn’t standing still. It’s holding the building up. You just can’t feel it because load-bearing walls don’t ask for applause.

The Collapse Nobody Sees Coming

The thing about load-bearing walls is that you don’t notice them until they’re gone. The building stands. Everything looks fine. You think the paint is what’s holding it together because the paint is all you can see.

Then the wall gives out and everything collapses at once. And you’re standing there in the rubble thinking “where did this come from?” It came from the 500 days you ignored the boring work. It just took that long to show.

A friend of mine is one of the best designers I’ve ever met. Went solo three years ago. Full roster of clients within six months. Excellent work. Everyone loved him.

Last month he told me he’s going back to a full-time job. Not because the work dried up. Because the load-bearing walls he never built finally collapsed. He owed $47,000 in taxes he didn’t plan for. His pipeline was feast-or-famine because he only looked for clients when he was desperate. His pricing hadn’t changed in two years. His invoicing was still the system he cobbled together on day one.

The paint was gorgeous. The walls weren’t there. And everything collapsed.

He’s not unique. I went through my own version of this when I started building my media business. The content was great. The interviews were great. The creative work was great. All paint. The financial systems, the pipeline management, the operational infrastructure, all of that was either missing or held together with duct tape.

It worked for a while because the paint was good enough to distract from the missing walls. But it couldn’t work forever. Because paint can’t hold up a building.

What the Survivors Build

The people I’ve interviewed who actually sustain what they build, over five years, ten years, twenty years, all have the same thing in common. It’s not that their paint is better. Their walls are better.

They built the boring infrastructure before they needed it. The financial systems that show them where their money is. The pipeline processes that keep clients coming whether they’re actively selling or not. The operational habits that prevent small problems from becoming $47,000 surprises.

They don’t talk about this stuff. Nobody asks about it in interviews. Nobody features it on podcasts. It’s not the exciting origin story. It’s not the breakthrough moment. But it’s the reason everything else works.

Warren Buffett’s load-bearing wall isn’t his investment genius. It’s his reading habit. Five hours a day, every day, for decades. The investments are paint. The reading is the wall.

Seinfeld’s load-bearing wall isn’t the specials. It’s writing jokes every single day. The specials are paint. The daily writing is the wall.

My load-bearing wall isn’t the interviews or the downloads or the newsletter. It’s the operational systems that let me publish consistently without burning out. The scheduling. The workflows. The financial tracking. The boring, invisible, nobody-posts-about-it infrastructure that makes everything visible possible.

If you’re building something solo and you know your walls are thin, Solo Summit is worth your time. It’s a free one-day virtual event from Lettuce built entirely around the boring stuff that holds solo businesses up: tax strategy, financial systems, AI workflows, client pipelines, operational efficiency. 11 sessions. Real outputs you leave with. Not motivation. Walls. Register free.

The Paint Addiction

Here’s what makes this so hard to fix: we’re addicted to paint.

The exciting work gives us a dopamine hit. We launched. We posted. We created. We performed. We did the visible thing and it felt amazing.

The boring work gives us nothing. No dopamine. No feedback. No recognition. Just the quiet confidence that the building is still standing. Which isn’t something you notice until it isn’t.

So we keep painting. We keep launching. We keep chasing the next exciting thing. And we keep skipping the boring thing. Until one day the wall we never built gives out and all that beautiful paint is on the floor.

I watch this in real time with entrepreneurs. They’ll spend three weeks on a product launch and zero time on their financial systems. They’ll spend a month preparing for a conference and zero time on their client pipeline. They’ll spend all their energy on the thing that gets applause and none on the thing that keeps the lights on.

Then the taxes come due. Or the pipeline goes dry. Or the operations break down. And they’re shocked. “I was doing so well.” You were painting so well. You weren’t building.

The Hierarchy, Corrected

Here’s what I’d tell my younger self, and what I’d tell anyone building something right now:

Flip the hierarchy. Put the boring stuff at the top. Not because it’s more enjoyable. Because it’s more important. The boring stuff is the load-bearing wall. The exciting stuff is paint. Paint matters. Paint makes the building beautiful. But paint without a wall is nothing.

Before you work on the next big thing, ask: Are my walls solid? Are my finances clear? Is my pipeline healthy? Are my systems running? Is the boring infrastructure in place?

If yes, go paint. Go launch. Go create. Go do the exciting work with the confidence that your building can hold it.

If no, stop painting. Build the wall first. It’s not glamorous. Nobody will congratulate you. Nobody will post about it. But it’s the work that everything else depends on.

The most successful people I’ve met didn’t become successful by doing more exciting work than everyone else. They became successful by doing more boring work than everyone else. By building walls when everyone else was painting. By investing in the invisible when everyone else was chasing the visible.

Solo Summit is one day dedicated entirely to building your walls. Tax strategy, financial planning, AI workflows, client pipelines, operational systems. The stuff nobody posts about but every successful solo has built. It’s free. One day to build the foundation.

What’s Actually Holding Your Building Up

Think about the thing you’re most proud of. The career you’ve built. The relationship you’re in. The health you’ve maintained. The business you’re running.

Now ask: what’s the load-bearing wall?

Not the exciting part. Not the visible part. Not the part you’d tell someone about at a dinner party. The boring part. The invisible part. The part that’s holding everything up that nobody ever sees or talks about or celebrates.

That’s the most important work you do. And you probably haven’t given it the attention it deserves in a long time.

The exciting work will always feel more urgent. The boring work will always feel like it can wait. But buildings don’t collapse because the paint fades. They collapse because the walls give out.

Build your walls. The paint will take care of itself.

Thank you for reading,

Scott

Sponsor: Solo Summit by Lettuce — A free one-day virtual event for solopreneurs. 11 masterclass sessions with real outputs: a financial plan, an AI workflow, a client pipeline. Not motivation. Tools. Register free.

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

Talent gets you in the room. Being the person everyone wants to work with again is what keeps you there for decades.

A few years ago I was trying to book a guest for the show. Big name. Best-selling author. The kind of person whose team usually takes six weeks to respond to an email and then asks you to submit a 40-question intake form before they’ll consider a 20-minute pre-call to discuss whether the interview might potentially be a fit.

His response came in 11 minutes. “Sounds great. Here’s my calendar link. Pick whatever works for you.”

No team. No gatekeepers. No intake form. No pre-call. Just a direct reply from the person himself, making it as easy as possible for me to book him.

I remember thinking, “This guy has sold millions of books and he just replied to my cold email in 11 minutes?” It didn’t fit. Everything I’d assumed about how successful people operate — the layers, the friction, the inaccessibility — he just skipped all of it.

The interview was the same way. He showed up two minutes early. His audio was perfect. He was engaged the entire time. When we finished, he sent me a follow-up email thanking me for the conversation and asking if there was anything he could do to help promote the episode.

I’ve since had him on the show two times. I’ve referred him to other podcasters. I’ve recommended his books in at least a dozen newsletters. I’ve introduced him to people in my network who became partners and collaborators.

All because he replied to an email in 11 minutes and was pleasant to work with.

Subscribe now

The Compound Interest Nobody Talks About

We talk a lot about compound interest in finance. Small investments that grow exponentially over time. Put a dollar in, let it sit, and decades later it’s worth something meaningful.

But there’s a type of compounding that’s far more powerful than money and almost nobody discusses it: the compound interest of being easy to work with.

Every time you’re reliable, responsive, and pleasant in a professional interaction, you’re making a deposit. Not into a bank account. Into someone’s memory. Into their mental filing system of “people I’d work with again.” And that filing system is where the best opportunities in the world come from.

Not job boards. Not LinkedIn. Not cold outreach. The best opportunities come from someone thinking, “Who do I know who would be perfect for this?” and your name being the first one that comes to mind. Not because you’re the most talented person they know. Because you’re the easiest to work with.

I’ve seen this pattern so consistently over 800+ interviews that I’ve stopped thinking of it as a nice personality trait and started thinking of it as a career strategy. Maybe the most underrated one that exists.

What “Easy to Work With” Actually Means

I want to be specific here because “easy to work with” sounds vague. Like something you’d put on a performance review. “Scott is easy to work with.” Great. What does that mean?

From watching the people who benefit from this the most, it means a handful of very specific behaviors. None of them are complicated. All of them are rare.

They respond quickly. Not because they’re not busy. Because they understand that a fast response, even a short one, removes friction from the other person’s day. The author who replied in 11 minutes didn’t write me an essay. He wrote one sentence and a calendar link. Took him 30 seconds. Saved me a week of follow-up.

I’ve noticed this pattern across almost every highly successful person I’ve worked with. The busiest people respond the fastest. The people with the least going on take the longest. It’s counterintuitive until you realize that responsiveness isn’t a function of how busy you are. It’s a function of how you think about other people’s time.

They make things easy for others. They don’t create complexity where it doesn’t need to exist. They don’t send emails that require three follow-ups to decode. They don’t schedule meetings that could be a message. They don’t add friction to simple processes. They remove obstacles instead of creating them.

One founder I know sends every potential collaborator a one-page document before their first call. It has everything the other person needs to know: what they’re working on, what they need, what the timeline looks like, and what a good outcome would be. No guessing. No wasted time. No 45-minute call where the first 30 minutes are just figuring out why you’re talking.

When I asked him why he does this, he said, “I assume everyone is busy. If I can save them 20 minutes, they’ll remember that. And they’ll want to work with me again.”

They follow through on what they say. If they say they’ll send something by Tuesday, they send it by Tuesday. If they say they’ll make an introduction, they make it within 48 hours. If they commit to something, they do it.

This sounds basic. It’s not. Most people follow through about 60% of the time. They forget. They get busy. They meant to send that email but it slipped through the cracks. And each time it happens, they make a small withdrawal from the other person’s trust account.

The people who follow through 95% of the time aren’t doing anything extraordinary. They’re just doing what they said they would do. But because the bar is so low, because so many people are unreliable, consistent follow-through becomes a genuine differentiator.

They’re pleasant. Not fake pleasant. Not networking-event pleasant. Just genuinely easy to be around. They don’t bring drama to professional interactions. They don’t make everything about status or ego. They don’t need to win every conversation. They ask questions. They listen. They make the other person feel like the interaction was worth their time.

Why This Compounds

Here’s where it gets interesting. Each of these behaviors, on its own, is small. Responding to an email quickly doesn’t change your career. Following through on one commitment doesn’t land you a major opportunity. Being pleasant in a single meeting doesn’t transform your professional life.

But these behaviors compound. And they compound in a way that’s invisible until it’s not.

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

Most of the turning points in your life were throwaway moments for the person who caused them.

When I was 22, a guy I barely knew told me I was wasting my time.

I was at a networking event. One of those awkward ones with name tags and bad appetizers where everyone’s trying to hand out business cards. I was telling him about my job at the time, something forgettable, and halfway through my pitch he just said, “You’re way too smart to be doing that. You know that, right?”

Then he grabbed a drink and talked to someone else. Whole interaction lasted maybe 90 seconds.

I don’t think he remembers saying it. It was a throwaway line for him. Small talk at a networking event. He probably said similar things to five other people that night.

But I went home and couldn’t sleep. Because he was right. I was coasting. I knew it. I just needed someone to say it out loud. And once someone did, I couldn’t unhear it.

Within six months, I’d changed the entire direction of my career. Made decisions that led to everything I’m doing now. The podcast. The newsletter. The business. All of it traces back, at least in part, to a sentence a guy I barely knew said to me at a bad networking event while holding a plastic cup of wine.

He has no idea.

The Invisible Turning Points

When I think about the handful of moments that genuinely altered the course of my life, almost none of them were planned. They weren’t the big, dramatic decisions I agonized over. They were small. Offhand comments. Casual introductions. Sentences people said to me that they forgot five minutes later but I carried for years.

A teacher in school who told me I was a good writer. I don’t think she meant it as anything more than encouragement. But I internalized it. It became part of how I saw myself. And that identity shaped choices I made for the next two decades.

A friend who casually mentioned a podcast he’d been listening to, years before I started mine. I don’t even remember the context. But the idea planted itself. Grew slowly. Eventually became the thing I’m most known for.

A founder I met early in my career who treated me like I was worth his time when I clearly wasn’t. He didn’t mentor me. He just took a meeting, answered my questions honestly, and told me to reach out if I ever needed anything. I never reached out. But the way he treated me shaped how I treat people who reach out to me now.

None of these people know they changed my life. For them, these were forgettable interactions. Tuesday afternoon conversations. A quick email. A sentence at dinner they don’t remember saying.

For me, they were turning points.

Subscribe now

The Sentence Economy

I’ve started thinking about this as a sentence economy. There’s an economy of sentences moving through the world at all times. Millions of conversations happening every day. Billions of words exchanged. And buried in all that noise, every once in a while, someone says something to someone that changes everything.

The thing that makes this powerful is also what makes it invisible: the speaker almost never knows which sentence it was.

You can’t predict it. You can’t engineer it. You can’t sit down and say “I’m going to change someone’s life with this conversation.” It doesn’t work like that. The sentences that change people’s lives are almost always the unplanned ones. The thing you said without thinking. The observation you made because it was obvious to you. The encouragement you offered because it cost you nothing.

It cost you nothing. It changed everything for them.

I think about this every time I record a podcast episode. I’ve done over 800 episodes. That’s thousands of hours of conversation. Millions of sentences. And I know — I know because listeners tell me — that buried somewhere in those episodes are sentences that changed someone’s career. Someone’s marriage. Someone’s relationship with their parents. Someone’s decision to start a business or quit a job or have a hard conversation they’d been avoiding.

I don’t know which sentences they were. The guests who said them don’t know either. They were just answering a question. Just being honest. Just saying what was on their mind.

And somewhere, someone was driving to work or folding laundry or walking the dog, and they heard something that hit them in a way nobody could have anticipated. A sentence that rearranged how they saw themselves. And their life split into before and after that moment.

Neither I nor the guest will ever know.

The Asymmetry

There’s a strange asymmetry to influence. The moments that mean the most to us usually mean nothing to the person who created them. And the moments where we’re trying hardest to make an impact often land with less force than the things we say without trying.

Think about the people who shaped you. Really think about it. Your parents, sure. Your closest friends, probably. But beyond the obvious ones, who else? Who said something at the right time that you’ve never forgotten?

A boss who gave you a chance when you weren’t ready. A stranger who complimented your work when you were about to quit. A friend who asked you a question you’d never considered. An author whose sentence you underlined and came back to for years.

Now ask yourself: Do they know?

Have you ever told the teacher who believed in you that she changed your life? Have you ever told the friend who introduced you to your partner that he altered the entire trajectory of your future? Have you ever told the author whose book you’ve recommended a hundred times that their words are still echoing in your head years later?

Probably not. Because these moments feel so personal, so internal, that it never occurs to you that the other person might want to know. Or might not even remember.

That’s the asymmetry. Your most transformative moments are someone else’s forgotten Tuesday.

You’re Doing This Right Now

Here’s where this gets interesting. If the most important moments in your life were accidents — throwaway sentences from people who had no idea what they were doing — then you’re doing the same thing to other people right now.

You are, at this very moment, someone’s turning point and you don’t know it.

Something you said to a coworker last month might be the reason they finally applied for that job. Something you told your kid at breakfast might become the story they tell in interviews 20 years from now. An email you sent, a comment you made, a question you asked — any one of those might be the thing someone points to later when they explain how their life changed.

You’ll never know which ones. That’s the point.

This used to bother me. The randomness of it. The fact that you can’t control which of your words land and which disappear. But I’ve started seeing it differently.

If you knew which sentence was going to change someone’s life, you’d try to craft it perfectly. You’d overthink it. You’d perform. And the performance would kill the thing that made it powerful in the first place — the honesty, the casualness, the fact that it was real and unrehearsed and came from a genuine place.

The sentences that change lives aren’t polished. They’re true. They land because they’re the thing someone needed to hear, said by a person who didn’t know they needed to say it.

The Responsibility You Didn’t Ask For

Once you see this, you can’t unsee it. And it changes how you show up.

Not in a dramatic way. You don’t need to start treating every conversation like it’s a TED talk. That would be insufferable and also counterproductive, because again, the moments that matter are the unscripted ones.

But you start paying more attention. You realize that how you treat people in the small moments — the quick conversations, the casual interactions, the forgettable Tuesdays — matters more than you thought. Because you never know which small moment is someone else’s turning point.

The founder who took a meeting with me when I was nobody didn’t know he was shaping how I’d treat people for the rest of my career. But he did. And now every time someone reaches out to me — someone early in their journey, someone who clearly doesn’t have anything to offer me — I think about him. I take the meeting. I answer honestly. I treat them like they’re worth my time.

Because they are. And because someone did that for me once and it changed everything.

Marcus Aurelius wrote that we are all part of the same body. That what benefits one benefits all. I used to think that was abstract philosophy. Now I think it’s literal. The sentence you say today travels further than you think. Through people you’ll never meet. Into rooms you’ll never enter. It compounds in ways you can’t trace.

Your words have a half-life that extends far beyond the conversation.

What This Means

Three things I’ve started doing since I realized this:

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also…

Start here > ​https://newsletter.scottdclary.com​

Check out my ​Podcast​, connect with me on ​YouTube​ / ​Twitter​, and read my ​Weekly Newsletter​

Sponsor: Huel​

I skipped lunch three times last week. Not because I wanted to—back-to-back calls, no time, and my options were: waste 30 minutes prepping, grab drive-thru garbage, or just stay hungry. By 3pm I’m making terrible decisions because my blood sugar’s crashed and I can’t focus.

​Huel Black Edition fixes this.​ 35 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals—it’s a complete meal, not a protein shake. Under $5, zero prep, and I’m not losing my afternoon to hunger brain.

New customers get 15% off with code SCOTTCLARY at ​huel.com/scott​. Minimum $75 purchase.

This Weeks Letter:

Success Story Podcast

I host a podcast which has 100 million+ downloads.

You should subscribe on ​Apple Podcasts​, ​Spotify​ or ​YouTube​.

Last Week’s Episodes

Rebecca Zung - The Leverage Lawyer (Top 1% Attorney) | The Top 1% Attorney Who Cracked the Code on Beating Narcissists

Rebecca Zung, known as "The Leverage Lawyer," is a 25-year trial attorney, TEDx speaker, and the creator of SLAY AI — the first patented AI platform designed to help people build court-ready leverage in high-conflict custody, divorce, and negotiation situations. Named one of the Best Lawyers in America by U.S. News, she is the USA Today and Amazon bestselling author of SLAY the Bully: How to Negotiate with a Narcissist and Win. Her remarkable rise — from divorced single mother and college dropout to one of the nation's most respected trial lawyers — fuels her passionate mission to equip people with the tools to break free from toxic relationships and win against high-conflict personalities.

See you next week,

Scott

My Links

• Success Story (Top 10 Entrepreneur Podcast)

• 10 Minute Mindset (Top Mindset Podcast)

• Newsletter (321k Subs)

• Social Media

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

The most successful people you know are slightly delusional.

I had a conversation with a founder last year that I haven’t stopped thinking about.

He’d just raised $40 million. Real revenue. Customers loved the product. By every reasonable metric, this guy had figured it out. So I asked him what it felt like when he first started. Before the traction. Before anyone cared.

He said, “I genuinely believed we’d be a billion dollar company before we had a single customer. And I know that sounds insane. It was insane. But if I didn’t believe that, I never would have made the first phone call.”

He’s not unique. Almost every founder, creator, and operator I’ve interviewed who built something meaningful has said some version of this. They believed something unreasonable about their future before there was any evidence to support it.

We have a word for people who believe things without evidence. We call them delusional. But when it works out, we call them visionary. The only difference between the two is the outcome.

Subscribe now

The Evidence Problem

If you only pursued things where the evidence was on your side, you’d never start anything worth starting.

Think about it. The evidence against any new venture is overwhelming. Most businesses fail. Most podcasts die after seven episodes. Most newsletters never get past 500 subscribers. Most books don’t sell. The data says don’t bother.

So the people who actually build something have to ignore the data at some level. They look at a mountain of evidence that says “this probably won’t work” and say “yeah, but I’m going to do it anyway.” That’s not rational. It’s a little bit delusional. And it’s completely necessary.

I remember when I started the podcast. I was a sales guy. Nobody was asking me to interview CEOs. I had no audience, no studio, no connections in media. If you’d shown me the stats on how many podcasts make it past episode 20, I probably should have done something else with my time.

But I had this belief that if I just kept having interesting conversations with smart people, something would compound. I couldn’t prove it. I just felt it.

Seven years and over 100 million downloads later, I can tell you that feeling wasn’t based on anything logical. It was based on a version of myself that didn’t exist yet. I was betting on a future me.

Delusion vs. Denial

There’s a line here and it matters.

Read more

A few months ago I opened the settings on my phone and checked which apps had been using my location in the background.

I expected maybe five or six. There were over thirty. Apps I’d downloaded two or three years ago and hadn’t opened since. A restaurant reservation app from a trip I took in 2023. A weather app I’d replaced. A fitness tracker from a gym I cancelled. All of them still running, still pinging my location, still doing whatever they were designed to do when I first said yes to them. I hadn’t thought about any of them in years. They hadn’t stopped thinking about me.

I spent ten minutes turning them off and deleting the ones I didn’t recognize anymore. And then I sat there for a second, because the thing that struck me was how long they’d been running without me noticing. I’d said yes once, moved on with my life, and the process kept going. Nobody asked me again. Nobody checked in. The default was to keep running, and the default won because I never came back to question it.

That’s when I started thinking about how much of my life works the same way.

The background process

Your life is full of things that are still running because you said yes to them once.

Old beliefs about what you’re good at, formed in your twenties, that you’ve never revisited even though you’ve changed. Commitments you made to people or organizations that auto-renewed without you checking whether they still make sense. Spending patterns that started when you were in a different financial situation and kept going because you never sat down and looked at them. Relationships you maintain out of habit that drain you every time you show up but you keep showing up because the default is to keep showing up.

None of these things announced themselves. They didn’t send you a notification asking if you’d like to continue. They just kept running, consuming resources, because the default setting for almost everything in life is “on until you turn it off.”

I had a conversation with a founder on the podcast a while back who told me she does a quarterly review of every recurring commitment in her life. Not just subscriptions, but relationships, beliefs, assumptions about her business that she made when the company was five people and she was still operating on at fifty. She said most of what she finds during these reviews is fine, still serving her, still useful. But every quarter she finds two or three things that have been running in the background, costing her time or energy or money, that she would never have started today if someone asked her fresh. The only reason they’re still going is that nobody asked.

That idea stuck with me. The gap between what you would choose today, starting from scratch, and what you’re currently living with because you chose it once and never went back. That gap is where most of the friction in a busy life hides.

Why we don’t check

In 1988, two economists named William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser published a paper called Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. They ran a series of experiments showing that people disproportionately stick with whatever the current default is, even when better options are available, even when the cost of switching is low, even when they can see the better option right in front of them. The default wins because the default doesn’t require a decision. Choosing something new does. And the brain, whenever possible, avoids decisions it doesn’t have to make.

Samuelson and Zeckhauser found that this bias gets stronger, not weaker, as the number of options increases. The more choices available, the more likely people are to stick with whatever they already have. The complexity of evaluating alternatives makes the status quo feel safer, even when it isn’t.

One of the most striking demonstrations of this came from organ donation research. In countries where organ donation is the default, where you have to opt out if you don’t want to participate, donation rates hover above ninety percent. In countries where you have to opt in, rates drop to around fifteen percent. The difference between ninety percent and fifteen percent isn’t a difference in values. People in both groups feel the same way about organ donation when you ask them. The difference is which option requires a decision and which one runs in the background.

That finding tells you something uncomfortable about your own life. The things that are currently running, the subscriptions, the commitments, the beliefs, the patterns, are not running because you actively chose them today. They’re running because you chose them once and the default kept them going. You are living, right now, with the accumulated defaults of every version of yourself that came before you. And most of those defaults have never been reviewed.

The audit

The founder I mentioned does her review quarterly. I’ve started doing something similar, though less structured. Every few months I try to look at what’s running and ask a version of the same question about each one: would I start this today?

It applies to everything. The commitment I’d never take on if someone asked me today, knowing what my schedule looks like now. The subscription I’d never re-sign up for if I had to do it from scratch. The relationship I’d let go of if it weren’t already in motion. The belief about myself I’d update if I looked at the evidence instead of running on the version I installed at twenty-five.

The answer is usually yes. Most of what’s running in my life is running for good reasons. But every time I do this, I find a few things that shouldn’t be there anymore. A commitment I took on when my schedule was different. A belief about what my audience wants that was based on data from three years ago. A pattern of saying yes to a particular kind of request because I said yes once and it became the default.

The interesting thing is that these background processes don’t feel like problems while they’re running. They feel like normal. They’re woven into your routine so completely that questioning them feels unnecessary. You’d never think to audit something that doesn’t appear to be broken. But the cost isn’t visible the way a broken thing is visible. The cost is in what you’re not doing with the resources those processes are consuming. The time you’re spending on a commitment you’d never start today. The energy going into a relationship that stopped being mutual two years ago. The mental bandwidth occupied by a belief about yourself that the evidence has already overturned.

(This is where DeleteMe comes in. More on that below.)

The background process you forgot about

One of the background processes I discovered during one of these audits was something I’d never thought to look for: my personal information circulating on data broker websites.

I knew data brokers existed in the abstract. Companies that scrape public records and build profiles on people, profiles that include your home address, phone number, age, relatives’ names, estimated income. I just assumed it was a background-noise kind of problem that didn’t touch me in any practical way.

Then I looked. I searched my own name on a few of these sites and found listings I didn’t know existed. Old addresses. A phone number I’d changed. Details about family members. All of it there because at some point, through public records or old accounts or data I’d shared with services I’d forgotten about, I’d said yes to a process that never stopped running.

DeleteMe is what I use now to handle this. You tell them what you want removed, their team submits removal requests across hundreds of broker sites, and they keep monitoring for new listings that pop up. It runs in the background, cleaning up the other thing that was running in the background. If you’ve never looked at what data brokers have on you, try DeleteMe for free. It takes about five minutes to see what’s out there.

What the audit is for

You don’t need to question everything all the time. That’s exhausting and counterproductive. You just need to periodically check what’s running and make sure the things consuming your time, energy, attention, and identity are things your current self would choose, not just things your past self forgot to cancel.

The most intentional people I know aren’t working harder than everyone else. They’ve just gotten in the habit of reviewing what’s running in the background and shutting down the processes that no longer serve them. They treat their commitments, beliefs, relationships, and defaults the way you’d treat your phone: something that works better when you periodically check what’s running and close the apps you’re not using anymore.

The unexamined default is the most expensive thing in your life. Not because any single one of them is ruining you. Because thirty of them, exposed together, are consuming resources you don’t realize you’re spending. And the only way to find them is to look.

Thank you for reading,

— Scott

Sponsor: DeleteMe — Remove your personal information from data broker sites. Your name, address, phone number, and more are being sold online without your consent. DeleteMe finds it and removes it. Try it free.

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

I built my entire career on talking. Then I realized the person listening had the power the whole time.

I remember sitting at a lunch table in high school. There was always one person telling the story. Everyone leaned toward them. Laughed at the right moments. Hung on what came next. That person was the center of the group. They mattered. You could feel it.

Then I’d look at the quiet kids. The ones sitting there, taking it in. Nobody looked at them. Nobody asked what they thought. Nobody texted them about the party this weekend. They weren’t being bullied. They were just being forgotten. And at 15, being forgotten is worse than being disliked. At least disliked means someone noticed you.

I decided at that table that I was never going to be the quiet kid. If having a story was how you got attention, I’d have the best story. If being loud was how you stayed visible, I’d be the loudest. If talking was how you proved you mattered, I was going to talk until everyone in the room knew I was there.

Subscribe now

What I didn’t understand at 15 is that there are two completely different kinds of silence. There’s the silence of having nothing to say. That’s what I was afraid of. The empty kind. The kind where you’re just sitting there because you’ve got nothing.

But there’s another kind. The silence of choosing not to say the thing you could say. That one isn’t empty. It’s full. It’s the silence of someone who’s actually paying attention. Someone who’s taking in more than they’re giving out. Someone who’s choosing to listen instead of perform.

From the outside, those two silences look identical. A quiet person is a quiet person. But from the inside, one is weakness and the other is power. I spent the next 15 years avoiding both because I couldn’t tell them apart. So I just never shut up.

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also…

Start here > ​https://newsletter.scottdclary.com​

Check out my ​Podcast​, connect with me on ​YouTube​ / ​Twitter​, and read my ​Weekly Newsletter​

Sponsor: Huel​

I skipped lunch three times last week. Not because I wanted to—back-to-back calls, no time, and my options were: waste 30 minutes prepping, grab drive-thru garbage, or just stay hungry. By 3pm I’m making terrible decisions because my blood sugar’s crashed and I can’t focus.

​Huel Black Edition fixes this.​ 35 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals—it’s a complete meal, not a protein shake. Under $5, zero prep, and I’m not losing my afternoon to hunger brain.

New customers get 15% off with code SCOTTCLARY at ​huel.com/scott​. Minimum $75 purchase.

This Weeks Letter:

Success Story Podcast

I host a podcast which has 100 million+ downloads.

You should subscribe on ​Apple Podcasts​, ​Spotify​ or ​YouTube​.

Last Week’s Episodes

Jason Wojo - Wojo Media CEO ($100M+ in Ad Revenue) | Why Your Business Isn’t Growing and What to Do About It

Jason Wojo is the founder and CEO of Wojo Media, a full-service digital marketing agency he built from the ground up after leaving culinary school in pursuit of entrepreneurship. Based in Orlando, Florida, Jason has worked with over 800 brands, and helped generate over $100 million in online revenue through his expertise in paid ads, sales funnels, copywriting, and sales systems. Known for his ability to scale businesses to six, seven, and even eight-figure run rates, Jason has become one of the most sought-after digital marketers in the industry — sharing his strategies and entrepreneurial insights with a growing audience online.

See you next week,

Scott

My Links

• Success Story (Top 10 Entrepreneur Podcast)

• 10 Minute Mindset (Top Mindset Podcast)

• Newsletter (321k Subs)

• Social Media

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

The finish line you’ve been running toward doesn’t exist. It never did.

When I was twenty-two I had one goal that I thought about more than anything else: a six-figure salary.

I don’t know where the number came from. Probably from growing up in Ottawa, where a six-figure government salary was the ceiling most adults I knew were building toward. Probably from the math I was doing in my head at that age, where a hundred thousand dollars a year meant I could pay rent without thinking about it, go to restaurants without checking my account first, and feel like I’d separated myself from the pack. At twenty-two, a hundred thousand dollars was the finish line. I was sure of it. If I could get there, I would know I’d made it.

I got there at twenty-three.

And for a few weeks, maybe a month, it felt like I thought it would. I’d look at my paycheque and feel a small pulse of confirmation. I’m here. I did it. The number I’d been chasing was real, and it was mine. I remember buying a dinner I didn’t need to think twice about and feeling the specific pleasure of being someone who could do that.

Then the number became normal. The salary I’d spent years thinking about became the salary I had, and having it felt the same as not having it had felt before I got it. The finish line I’d been running toward was behind me now. I was standing on it. And I could see a new one, further out, that I hadn’t been able to see before I got to the first one.

A few years later, after I’d started my own business, I crossed a million dollars in revenue. I’d like to tell you I popped a bottle of champagne or called someone or sat down and took a breath. I didn’t. I’m not even sure I noticed when it happened. There was no single day where the number appeared on a screen and I thought, this is the moment. It was more like I looked up one quarter and the number was behind me, and I was already thinking about the next thing.

The part that would have shocked twenty-two-year-old me was how little it registered. A million-dollar business had come and gone without ceremony. The finish line had moved so many times by then that crossing this one felt like crossing any other one. A brief registration that something had happened, followed by the awareness of how far the next line was.

I can hold the rational understanding that I’ve built something most people would be proud of. And I can feel, at the same time, that I haven’t started yet. Both of those things are true. They coexist without resolving.

I used to think something was wrong with me. Then I had a conversation that changed how I understood the whole pattern.

Subscribe now

The question that changed it

I had a guest on the podcast last year who sold his company for nine figures. I asked him when he knew he’d made it.

He laughed. Not a polite laugh. The kind that comes out before you can stop it, because the question is so far from what the answer looks like from inside.

“I still don’t think I’ve made it,” he said.

He meant it. The man had sold a company for more money than most people will see in ten lifetimes, and the internal experience of that achievement was the experience of looking up and seeing a new line further out than the last one. I recognized it because I’d been living inside a smaller version of the same thing for years. The scale was different. The feeling was identical.

He told me his original goal had been to pay his rent without stress. Then it became employing a few people. Then building something that could compete in a real market. Then building something worth acquiring. Each time he arrived, the person who arrived was bigger than the person who’d set the goal. The new goal matched the new person.

That’s when he said the thing I haven’t been able to stop thinking about. He said, “The line moved because I moved.”

Which raised a question I hadn’t considered before. If the line moves every time you reach it, and it moves because you’ve grown past the person who set it, then is the moving line a problem? Or is it just what ambition feels like from the inside?

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

The hardest part of your twenties has nothing to do with the grind.

I grew up in Ottawa (Capital of Canada). Government town. Most of the adults I knew worked for the government or worked for someone who worked for the government. The path was obvious and it was comfortable: get a degree, get a job with a pension, buy a house by thirty, and spend the next thirty-five years doing something tolerable until you could retire. It wasn’t a bad life. A lot of people I grew up with are living it right now and they’re fine. They have houses and kids and vacations.

But I watched something happen to my friends in our mid-twenties that I’ve never been able to shake.

One by one, they stopped trying.

My friend Matt got married at twenty-four. Got a government job around the same time. He’d locked everything down before most of us had figured out what we wanted to do for the weekend. At the time it looked like he had it all figured out. He’d skipped the messy years and gone straight to the settled life. By twenty-eight he was divorced. The marriage had been too early, the job was something he’d taken because it was there, and the life he’d built so fast turned out to be built on decisions a twenty-three-year-old made because he thought speed was the same thing as clarity. He’s still at the same job. Still in Ottawa. The divorce shook him but it didn’t change the trajectory. He just rebuilt the same structure with different furniture.

Another friend, Marc, was the boldest person in our group when we were young. Right after university he moved from Ottawa to Montreal for an accounting job. Left his girlfriend, left his family, left everything familiar. It was the kind of move that made the rest of us feel like we were standing still. And then that was it. That was the last bold thing he did. He moved back to Ottawa a few years later, took a position at a firm, and has been there for over a decade now. Same commute. Same routine. He made one big leap and then spent the rest of his twenties and thirties making sure he’d never have to make another one.

The rest of the group is some version of the same story. Same bar on Friday nights. Same jobs they’ve had since graduation. Same conversations. When I go back and see them, it feels like walking into a room that hasn’t been rearranged since 2014. They’re not unhappy, most of them. They’re just in the same spot. And they’ve been in that spot long enough that the spot has become the identity.

They didn’t become bad people. They became comfortable people. And then they wanted me to be comfortable with them.

Subscribe now

The pull

Nobody sits you down and says “lower your standards.” It doesn’t work like that. The pull is subtler and more effective than a direct request would be.

It shows up as concern. “Are you sure this is going to work out?” It shows up as jokes. “Must be nice to still be chasing the dream.” It shows up as advice delivered like it’s coming from someone who knows better. “At some point you have to be realistic.” Each one of these, on its own, is easy to brush off. But they come from the people you’ve known the longest. The people whose opinions you care about. The people who were in the room when you first started talking about doing something different. And over time, the accumulation of those small comments starts to feel like data.

If everyone around you has settled, and they’re all saying the same thing, it starts to feel like maybe they’re right. Maybe you’re the one who’s miscalculating. Maybe ambition past a certain age is just stubbornness dressed up as vision. This is the most dangerous version of peer pressure that exists, because it doesn’t feel like pressure. It feels like wisdom. It feels like your friends caring about you. And some of it is. But some of it is something else.

Read more

The most important things people tell you tend to arrive in the middle of a sentence you weren’t paying attention to.

A few months ago I was recording an interview with a guest on the show. Fifteen minutes in, they said something offhand about a business decision that nearly bankrupted them, a detail I knew could be the emotional center of the entire episode. The kind of moment that makes people stop their car and keep listening.

I didn’t follow up on it.

I was right there, but I was also trying to type notes into a doc, capture the key details from what they’d said two minutes earlier, and keep half an eye on the run of show. By the time I looked up from my screen, they’d moved on. The conversation kept going and never circled back.

After we finished recording, the guest asked me why I didn’t bring it up. They’d put it out there, waited for me to pull the thread, and I just didn’t. That was the moment I understood what I’d actually lost. Not a note, not a detail. An entire piece of the conversation that would have made the episode something people forwarded to their friends.

I’ve replayed that moment more times than I’d like to admit. I was there and I wasn’t there. Doing two things at once and doing both of them badly.

(Granola is what I use now to fix this. More below.)

The split

Every person who spends a significant chunk of their week on calls knows this feeling. You’re in a conversation that matters, with someone who’s giving you something real, and part of your brain is somewhere else. Typing notes, trying to get a quote right, worrying you’ll forget the thing they said ninety seconds ago while listening to the thing they’re saying now.

The act of capturing the conversation competes with the act of being in it. And almost everyone I know has just accepted this as the cost of doing business. You either take good notes and half-listen, or you stay present and walk away with nothing written down. Those feel like the only two options, and neither of them is great.

I talked to a founder on the show last year who told me she’d started bringing a second person to important meetings just to take notes, because she’d realized she was a different person when she wasn’t writing things down. More curious, better follow-up questions, more likely to catch the thing the other person almost didn’t say. The quality of her meetings improved overnight, and the only variable that changed was that her hands were free.

That stuck with me. The idea that the version of you that’s just listening, all the way in, is a better version than the one splitting attention between listening and recording. And that the difference shows up in the quality of the relationship, the conversation, and every decision that comes out of it.

What you lose when you’re half there

There’s a concept in psychology called attentional residue. When you switch between tasks, even for a few seconds, part of your cognitive capacity stays stuck on the previous task. Your brain doesn’t toggle cleanly. It leaves residue. So when you glance down at your notes to type a line and then look back up, you’re not all the way back in the conversation. A piece of your attention is still on the sentence you just typed.

Multiply this by thirty or forty micro-switches over the course of a single meeting, and by the end you’ve been running at maybe sixty percent of your actual capacity for the entire conversation. You were in the room but you weren’t all the way in. And the person across from you can feel it, even if neither of you names it.

I think about how many conversations I’ve had at that sixty percent level. Podcast prep calls where I was typing instead of listening for the thread I should pull on during the real interview. Strategy sessions where I was documenting instead of thinking. Calls with Gina where I was mentally composing a to-do list instead of hearing what she was actually telling me. (That one cost me more than the professional ones.)

The pattern is always the same. The most valuable part of any conversation is the part you can’t predict in advance. The offhand comment, the thing someone says when they think you’re wrapping up, the vulnerability that only surfaces when both people are all the way in the room. And that’s exactly the part that disappears when your attention is split.

What changed

I started using Granola a while back and it changed something about how I show up to meetings that I didn’t expect.

Granola runs in the background during any call, transcribing everything, but there’s no bot that joins the meeting. Nobody sees it. What I see is something like Apple Notes where I can jot down a word or two if I want, just a quick marker for myself. When the meeting ends, Granola takes those rough notes and the transcript and turns them into actual organized meeting notes. If I want to ask it something afterwards, like “what was their budget?” or “what did they say about the timeline?” I just ask.

The first time I used it, I caught myself doing something I hadn’t done in months: just listening. No typing, no summarizing in real time. Just being in the conversation. And the quality of that conversation was different in a way I could feel immediately. I asked better questions. I followed threads I would have missed. The person on the other end of the call was more open, because they could tell I was actually there.

It’s a small tool change that created a big behavioral shift. I went from being the person who was half-listening and half-documenting to someone who could be in the room, all the way in, and still walk away with everything captured. If you’re in back-to-back meetings and you’ve accepted the split-attention tax as normal, try Granola for free. It’s one of those things where the value clicks in the first meeting.

The broader lesson

I’ve been thinking about this beyond meetings, because the pattern applies everywhere. How often are you physically present for something important but cognitively somewhere else? Dinner with someone you love while your brain is still on the email you didn’t send. A walk with your kid while mentally rehearsing tomorrow’s pitch. The first five minutes of a podcast interview while you’re still processing the last call.

You gain an edge by being present, and most of us are giving that edge away in small increments all day long, usually to tasks that feel urgent but could be handled differently or by something else entirely.

The notebook exercise I wrote about a few weeks ago (tracking how you spend your time) reveals where your hours go. But there’s a subtler version of the same problem that the notebook can’t capture: the quality of attention you bring to the hours that remain. You might be spending the right amount of time on the right things and still operating at sixty percent because your attention is fractured.

The people I admire most, the ones I’ve interviewed who seem to operate at a different level, aren’t working more hours. They’re bringing more of themselves to fewer things. And the gap between them and everyone else has less to do with talent or strategy than most people think. It has to do with where their attention actually is when it matters.

Thank you for reading,

— Scott

Sponsor: ​Granola​ — The AI notepad for people in back-to-back meetings. Your notes + the transcript = perfect meeting notes without a bot on the call. ​Try it free​.

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also…

Start here > ​https://newsletter.scottdclary.com​

Check out my ​Podcast​, connect with me on ​YouTube​ / ​Twitter​, and read my ​Weekly Newsletter​

Sponsor: Huel​

I skipped lunch three times last week. Not because I wanted to—back-to-back calls, no time, and my options were: waste 30 minutes prepping, grab drive-thru garbage, or just stay hungry. By 3pm I’m making terrible decisions because my blood sugar’s crashed and I can’t focus.

​Huel Black Edition fixes this.​ 35 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals—it’s a complete meal, not a protein shake. Under $5, zero prep, and I’m not losing my afternoon to hunger brain.

New customers get 15% off with code SCOTTCLARY at ​huel.com/scott​. Minimum $75 purchase.

This Weeks Letter:

Success Story Podcast

I host a podcast which has 100 million+ downloads.

You should subscribe on ​Apple Podcasts​, ​Spotify​ or ​YouTube​.

Last Week’s Episodes

Arthur Brooks - Harvard Professor & #1 NYT Bestselling Author | Why the Most Successful People Feel the Most Empty

Arthur C. Brooks is a Harvard professor, #1 New York Times bestselling author, and one of the world’s leading experts on human happiness. His latest book, The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness, tackles the modern crisis of meaninglessness head-on, showing how rapid cultural and technological changes have rewired our brains away from purpose and offering practical, science-backed strategies to find it again. A former president of the American Enterprise Institute, columnist at The Free Press, CBS News contributor, and host of the Office Hours podcast, Brooks has spent his career turning cutting-edge research into real tools people can use to build happier, more meaningful lives.

See you next week,

Scott

My Links

• Success Story (Top 10 Entrepreneur Podcast)

• 10 Minute Mindset (Top Mindset Podcast)

• Newsletter (321k Subs)

• Social Media

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

The one who still doesn’t believe what the evidence says.

For years I told people I was an entrepreneur.

I read the books. I listened to the podcasts. I followed the founders online. I could hold my own in a real conversation about fundraising, about product-market fit, about hiring your first ten people. If you had met me at a dinner in my late twenties, you would have come away thinking you’d met someone who was building something. The vocabulary was there. The references were there. The confidence in the theory was there.

What wasn’t there, for a long time, was me doing it by myself.

I built companies. I was a co-founder on a few. An early employee at others. I worked hard, contributed real value, held equity, had titles, had stories I could tell at dinners. But there was always a partner. Always a salary from someone else’s risk. Always a parachute. I was in the game, technically, but I was in it with other people’s stakes on the table more than my own. I had made being adjacent to entrepreneurs look like being one.

And the whole time, I knew.

There was a voice, sometimes quiet, sometimes loud, that could tell the difference between the two. I was fluent in the language. I was useful to the people who were doing it. But I couldn’t bring myself to be the one standing exposed, with nothing underneath me, betting my own life on my own judgment. I told myself it was strategy. I told myself it was patience. I told myself I was building the skills for the right moment. Some of that was true. Some of it was the other thing, the quieter thing, which was that I didn’t trust myself enough to take the full weight.

Then I started the podcast. Alone. That was the first real one.

Since then I’ve built things on my own that worked. The podcast. The newsletter. A business with employees and revenue and all of the things that make it real. The evidence is there now. I’ve done it. If you handed my track record to a stranger and asked them to describe the person, they would describe someone who builds things alone and executes.

And I’m still trying to figure out the next part.

Every time I start something new on my own, there’s still a voice that says you can’t do this alone, you need a partner, you need someone to catch you if you fall. Even though I have the data. Even though the last six things I did alone worked. The public-facing version of me is a person who builds things solo. The private version flinches every time I have to sign up for another round of it by myself.

I want to understand why the evidence hasn’t been enough.

You are what you do

In 1967, a social psychologist named Daryl Bem published a paper that reversed one of psychology’s oldest assumptions. The old model: your attitudes cause your behavior. You’re honest, so you tell the truth. You’re brave, so you take the risk. You’re an entrepreneur, so you start the company. Character precedes action.

Bem proposed the opposite. He called it self-perception theory, and the core insight is this: people infer who they are from what they do. The same way you’d watch someone else’s actions and conclude something about their character, you watch your own actions and conclude something about yours. Your behavior comes first. Your sense of self is the story you construct to explain it.

Bem tested this across dozens of experiments. When people were asked to argue a position they didn’t initially hold, they came to hold it, because they were watching themselves argue it and concluding they must believe it. When people performed small acts of generosity, they began to see themselves as generous. When they cut corners, they began to see themselves as people who cut corners, even if they told themselves a nicer story in the moment.

The implication is clean. You are not the person you intend to be. You are the person you are in the aggregate of your actions.

Which should mean, if Bem is right, that the entrepreneurship gap I described up top should have closed by now. I should walk around feeling like someone who builds things alone, because the record of me building things alone exists and keeps growing. The private self should have caught up to the evidence. It hasn’t. And that’s what makes this interesting.

Self-perception theory assumes you’re paying attention to your own behavior. It assumes the evidence is being filed somewhere your private self can see it. That assumption is where the gap lives. Because for a lot of people, a lot of the time, the private self is not watching the public self. The two are running in separate rooms. Evidence accumulates on one side and never crosses over to the other.

I’ve started calling this the Ledger Lag.

Your life keeps two ledgers. One is public, visible to the world, updated in real time with everything you do. The other is private, visible only to you, and it updates on its own schedule. It’s slower. More conservative. Suspicious of new entries. When the two ledgers drift apart, the gap grows. And the longer the lag, the harder it becomes to reconcile.

Why the ledgers drift apart

The private ledger is operating on older information. The beliefs it holds about you were installed earlier, often much earlier. Maybe in childhood. Maybe in the first real job that didn’t go well. Maybe in the relationship that ended badly. Maybe in the moment your parents told you something wasn’t going to work out, and you believed them. The private ledger has a story about what you are and are not capable of, and that story was written before the new evidence came in.

The public ledger, meanwhile, has a fast feedback loop. People see what you do, they respond, they praise you, they hire you. That feedback reinforces the public identity in real time. The private one has no such mechanism. For it to update, you have to personally walk the new evidence over and present it. And most of us never do. The public ledger gets the podcast interview. The private one never gets the memo that the guy on the podcast is the same guy who used to think he couldn’t do this. The two never meet.

This is why accomplishments don’t land the way you think they will. You thought the big milestone would change how you feel about yourself. It doesn’t, because the person feeling things about yourself is the private self, and the private self didn’t get invited to the ceremony. The public self got a trophy. The private self is still sitting in 2014, convinced you’re not the kind of person who can pull this off.

The private self is not trying to sabotage you. It’s trying to protect you. The conservative part of you that refuses to believe the new evidence was built for a reason. Earlier in your life, that caution kept you safe from overconfidence that could have gotten you hurt. It kept you from bragging to the wrong person, from overestimating the job, from trusting a situation that should have been distrusted. Your private self developed its pessimism about your abilities because that pessimism was functional at some point in your development.

The problem is it doesn’t know when to stop. It keeps running the same caution program even after the situation has changed. The younger version of you that needed the voice to stay humble is no longer in the same body as the adult version of you that is running a business, hitting deadlines, executing on a public stage. But the voice kept running. It updates slowly, on its own conservative schedule, and in the meantime the public ledger has shot ahead by an order of magnitude.

That mismatch between the two timelines is what keeps the ledgers apart. The public one operates on real-time feedback. The private one operates on protective instincts built years or decades ago. For them to reconcile, the private self has to be talked into looking at the new material. It doesn’t do it on its own.

Why the evidence doesn’t land

In 1978, two psychologists at Georgia State named Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes published a paper called The Imposter Phenomenon in High Achieving Women. They had been studying a pattern they kept noticing in their clinical work. High-achieving women, women with real credentials and genuine accomplishments, could not internalize their own success. They attributed it to luck. To timing. To having fooled the people around them. No matter how much they achieved, the private sense of being a fraud didn’t budge.

Clance and Imes wrote something in that paper that stayed with me when I read it. “Numerous achievements, which one might expect to provide ample objective evidence of superior intellectual functioning, do not appear to affect the impostor belief.” The evidence didn’t matter. These women had the receipts. They had the degrees, the promotions, the publications. And the private self refused to look at any of it.

That finding became the concept we now call imposter syndrome. Today it gets described as a psychological bug, an irrational feeling that high performers get and need to overcome. I don’t think that framing is right. Clance and Imes described something more specific. They described a pattern of attribution. The imposter person takes every piece of positive evidence and files it under something other than their own ability. Luck. Effort. Having fooled the observers. The private ledger stays closed because every new entry is getting redirected to external causes before it can be filed under “what I’m capable of.”

Meryl Streep, who has been nominated for the Academy Award more times than any other actor in history, has talked about this. In interviews over the years, she has said some version of the same thing every time. She watches herself in a finished film and thinks she can’t act. She wonders why anyone would want to hire her again. She has gone into every new role convinced she doesn’t know how to do what she’s about to do. The public ledger is, at this point, so overwhelming that no reasonable observer could conclude anything other than that she is one of the greatest actors of her generation. The private ledger has apparently not filed a single one of those performances as evidence.

I caught my own version of this a few years in. I had hit a milestone I’d been working toward for a long time, something concrete and measurable, a number I would have told you, years earlier, would mean I had made it. I remember the week I hit it. I was in my office. I looked at the number and felt, for about fifteen seconds, something like satisfaction. Then I started thinking about the next thing. What I needed to do next to keep the machine running. What I hadn’t done yet. What I was behind on. The milestone that had lived in my head for years as proof of capability had, in practice, done almost nothing to my sense of what I was capable of.

I talked to Gina about it later that night. I tried to describe the feeling. The closest I could get was that I had watched someone else hit the milestone. Somebody with my name had done it, and I was reading about it. The person who had been anxious about whether he could pull it off was still sitting in the chair where he’d been sitting the whole time, untouched by the news. The milestone had landed on the public ledger. The person who needed to feel it was on a different one.

This was the Clance pattern at work. Every big result was getting attributed to something other than my capability. This worked because the market was hot. That worked because I got lucky with timing. The private ledger had a story about what I could do, and it was kicking every new entry back to the public side with a reason attached. The reasons felt true in the moment. But they were the mechanism, not the explanation. The mechanism was the private ledger refusing to update, using whatever plausible external cause it could find to justify the rejection.

This is why faking it till you make it doesn’t work for this kind of gap. Faking it creates more accomplishments, which should feed the private ledger. But the private ledger is an active filter, not a passive receipt-taker. It decides what to file and what to reject. You can produce evidence for a decade, and if the filter is running, the evidence never gets in. The performance continues. The belief doesn’t update.

The work is not in producing more evidence. I have plenty of evidence. The work is in making myself look at the evidence I already have, and refusing to let the private ledger kick it back to the public side with a reason attached.

The gap is everywhere

I’m not the only person who lives inside this gap. It happens in smaller forms in almost every life. The employee who has been promoted three times and still walks into meetings feeling like they shouldn’t be there. The parent who has raised good kids and still wonders if they’re any good at this. The friend who shows up for everyone and still isn’t sure anyone would show up for them. In every case the public record says one thing and the private ledger refuses to believe it.

I had a guest on the podcast years ago, someone who had sold two companies for significant money and was considered one of the sharpest operators in his industry. Off mic, he told me he still prepares for every meeting like he’s about to be exposed. He runs the numbers three times. He drafts and redrafts his talking points. He assumes, every time, that he’s walking into a room where he’ll be caught. His public ledger, by any reasonable measure, was one of the most impressive I’d seen. His private ledger was still operating at the level of someone who had never done anything yet.

There’s a quote I’ve been thinking about from Maya Angelou, who gave interviews about this late in her career. She said, “I have written eleven books, but each time I think, ‘Uh oh, they’re going to find out now. I’ve run a game on everybody, and they’re going to find me out.’” This was Maya Angelou. Poet Laureate. National Medal of Arts. A public ledger that anyone in America could describe. And she was waking up, at the start of her twelfth book, convinced she had been running a con the whole time.

The pattern is consistent across domains and careers. The question isn’t how much you’ve accomplished. The question is whether the private ledger is reading the accomplishments. For most of us, most of the time, it isn’t.

What my mom taught me

My mother is the only person I’ve ever known whose public and private ledgers line up.

She’s the same with her closest friends as she is with someone she just met at a checkout counter. The same warmth. The same attention. There’s no second version waiting in the wings for when the door closes and the public person gets to rest.

I used to think it was personality. She was born warm, that’s who she is, nothing to learn from it. The older I get, the more I realize it’s something else. She never built a public persona. So there’s no persona pulling ahead of her. There’s no audience applauding a version of her that her private self hasn’t signed off on. The two ledgers never separated because she never built one of them for external consumption.

You can feel it when you meet her. There’s no flicker. People pick up on it even when they can’t name it. They trust her faster. They tell her things they don’t tell other people. She isn’t spending any energy on a performance, which means she has more of it available for them.

I’ve tried to imitate this my whole life and I still can’t do it. I code-switch. I sharpen when I’m around certain people. I soften when I’m around others. I catch myself doing small recalibrations she doesn’t seem to need.

The interesting thing is that my mother has done a lot in her life. She raised us. She worked. She built a marriage that lasted decades. She has all the accomplishments that, for someone else, would sit on a public ledger growing further and further from a private one. But because she never put them on public display, because she never built an audience around the doing, the achievements landed directly on her private ledger. There was no middleman self. No performance catching the praise and passing it along on a delay. The work went in, the update happened, and her sense of self adjusted in real time to match what she had done.

That’s what she has, that most of us don’t. A private ledger that’s been in sync with her actual life the whole time. She didn’t build anything on the outside that ran ahead of what she privately believed about herself. She didn’t chase an audience. She didn’t perform a version. So her two ledgers grew at the same pace, updated in the same moments, and never developed the kind of distance that takes decades to close.

That’s what the gap looks like when it doesn’t exist. Not perfection. Not sainthood. Just two ledgers that know each other because they’ve never been apart.

Most of us can’t go back and do what my mother did. The public ledger is already ahead. The distance is already there. The question isn’t whether to build a public self. The question is what to do now that the gap is open and widening.

What to do when the evidence is sitting right there

If you’re like me, if your public ledger has been accumulating evidence the private one hasn’t accepted, there’s a real question of what to do about it.

The easy answer is fake it till you make it. Keep performing the public version and eventually the private self will believe. That doesn’t work for this kind of gap. You can produce evidence for a decade and the private ledger still won’t read it. The performance continues. The belief doesn’t update.

The harder answer is that you have to force the two ledgers into the same room. You have to make the private one look at what the public one has done. Not once. Over and over. Every time the anxiety spikes, every time the voice says you can’t do this alone, you have to remind the private ledger that it has been outvoted by the evidence. The public ledger has data. The private one has a story. The story isn’t more true because it feels true.

For me, this looks like catching the voice when it shows up. Starting something new, hearing the private self say you need a partner for this, and responding with a list. The podcast worked. The newsletter worked. The business works. The private self gets to have its anxiety. It doesn’t get to overrule the evidence.

The way I do this, in practice, is I keep a mental record. When I started the podcast, here is what I was scared of, and here is what happened. When I launched the newsletter, here is what I was scared of, and here is what happened. When I took on the first full-time employee, here is what I was scared of, and here is what happened. Each entry is a fear the private ledger held and the public record overturned. Reviewing the record is the exercise. Not once. Every time a new version of the fear shows up, which is every time I start something. The point is to force the filing. To stop and say, explicitly, this belongs in the record. The fear you are feeling right now is not new information. The record is new information. Read the record.

The private ledger will resist this. It will say, well, that was different. That was a smaller thing. The market was kinder then. You got lucky with the timing. It has a thousand ways to keep the new entry from being filed. Part of the practice is learning to recognize those rejections for what they are, which is the attribution pattern Clance described, running its protective script. The private ledger is not being rational when it does this. It’s running a pattern that was installed earlier, and the pattern doesn’t know how to stop on its own.

When you notice the rejection happening, the work is to name it. To say, out loud or in your head, “that’s the old program. The evidence still counts.” You don’t have to believe it the first time. You don’t have to believe it the hundredth time. You have to keep putting the entry in front of the private ledger and refusing to let the rejection win. Over time, some of the entries do get filed. The private ledger updates, slowly, in the moments you force it to look.

The fear doesn’t go away. I’m not writing this as someone who has solved it. I’m writing it as someone who has learned to do the thing anyway, while the fear is happening, because the evidence is enough to outvote the fear even when the fear is still there.

I don’t know that the anxiety ever goes away. I’ve talked to people much further along in the game than me who still feel it every time they start something new. The gap may never close entirely. But it can get narrower. Each time you choose the evidence over the story, the private ledger updates a little. Over years, the two ledgers get closer to each other.

This is private work. Nobody will reward you for reminding yourself that you’re capable of what you’ve already done. The public self will keep accumulating achievements for as long as you keep working. The private self will only ever get what you personally hand to it. If you don’t hand it anything, you can spend your whole life producing accomplishments that don’t land, building a record you can’t feel, collecting evidence for a case you never bring to court.

The version of you nobody sees is the one keeping score. The version of you everyone sees is the one doing the work. Somewhere between them is the self you get to live inside. Whether that self feels like it matches the evidence is a decision you make, in private, over and over, for as long as the gap is open.

Thank you for reading,

— Scott

My Links

• Success Story (Top 10 Business Podcast)

• 10 Minute Mindset (Top Self Development Podcast)

• Newsletter (321k Subs)

• Social Media

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

Most people aren’t wrecked by what happened to them. They’re wrecked by the six months they spent replaying it.

Something bad happens on a Wednesday. A deal falls through. A relationship ends. Someone says something that lands wrong and sticks. By Wednesday night, you’ve replayed the moment four or five times. By Thursday, you’ve started analyzing it. By the following week, you’ve built a narrative: what it means about you, what it says about the other person, how it connects to a pattern you’ve been noticing for years.

A month later, the event itself is a footnote. The story you built around it is a novel.

You know people like this. You might be one. The event was painful for a day, maybe two, but the interpretation of the event has been running in the background for weeks. The original wound closed. The story you told yourself about the wound kept reopening it, and you kept returning to it, poking at it, asking it questions it couldn’t answer, until the story became more real than the event itself.

This is the pattern that separates people who bounce back from people who don’t. And the research on it, once you pull the threads together, reveals something uncomfortable about how human minds are built: we’re wired to turn events into identities, and the wiring has no off switch. You have to learn to override it.

Subscribe now

The replay tax

Susan Nolen-Hoeksema spent her career at Yale studying a single question: why do some people stay stuck in negative emotions while others move through them?

Her answer, which she tested across thousands of participants over two decades, was rumination. She defined it as the tendency to focus on the fact that you feel bad, on the causes and meanings and consequences of feeling bad, without moving toward a solution. Replaying the event. Analyzing why it happened. Asking what it means about you.

Her findings were bleak. Rumination exacerbates depression, impairs problem-solving, and erodes the social support that might otherwise help a person recover. The people around a ruminator get worn down by the repetition and pull away, which confirms the ruminator’s belief that nobody understands, which fuels more rumination. A feedback loop with no natural exit.

The key distinction in her work is between rumination and reflection. Reflection moves toward resolution: what happened, what you can learn, what you’ll do differently. Rumination circles the same point without moving anywhere. It feels like thinking. It’s closer to a groove in a record that the needle can’t escape.

Ruminators don’t just feel worse for longer. They generate fewer solutions to problems and are less likely to act on the solutions they do generate. Nolen-Hoeksema found that they’re also more likely to reach for avoidance behaviors, from binge eating to excessive drinking, because the mental loop becomes unbearable and anything that interrupts it, even something destructive, feels like relief.

The part that should concern you: rumination feels like processing. Most people who do it believe they’re working through their feelings, that the replaying serves a purpose, that they need to understand what happened before they can move on. Nolen-Hoeksema’s data says the replaying generates more replaying, not resolution. The people who recover fastest are the ones who feel the emotion, extract what’s useful, and stop the loop before it becomes self-reinforcing.

The cruel irony is that the people who think the most about their pain are the ones who suffer from it the longest. And they believe the thinking is helping.

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

The books that changed your life the most are probably the ones you can barely remember.

I read Fooled by Randomness in 2019. I know it rewired something in me because I can trace specific decisions back to it. The way I evaluate risk. My distrust of anyone who explains their success as a clean line from effort to outcome. A general allergy to narratives that sound too neat.

But ask me to summarize the book right now, and I’d embarrass myself. I couldn’t give you chapter titles. I couldn’t quote a passage. I remember Nassim Taleb’s voice in my head more than I remember his words on the page.

For a long time this bothered me. I’d finish a book, feel like it cracked something open, and three months later have almost nothing to show for it. I started keeping a list of every book I read in a year. Twenty-six books one year. I sat down in December and tried to write one meaningful takeaway from each. I got through about nine before the rest blurred into vague impressions and half-remembered anecdotes. Seventeen books, gone. Hundreds of hours of reading, and all I had left was the feeling that I’d done it.

That’s when I went looking for an explanation.

Subscribe now

What Ebbinghaus found

A German psychologist named Hermann Ebbinghaus ran memory experiments on himself in the 1880s and plotted something called the forgetting curve. The shape is brutal: you lose about 70 percent of new information within 24 hours. Within a month, 90 percent. The drop is steepest right after you learn something, then it levels off into a long fade.

His experiments used nonsense syllables, so the real numbers for books are less extreme. But the shape holds. If you finish a book and move on to the next one, most of what you read drains out within weeks. You keep the feeling. You lose the substance.

This explained my December list. It also explained something I’d noticed but couldn’t articulate: the books I remembered best were the ones I’d talked about. If I read something and then explained it to a friend over dinner that week, those ideas stuck. The books I read in silence and shelved, even the ones I loved, evaporated.

Ebbinghaus found the same thing. Every time you re-engage with material in the first 48 hours, you flatten the curve. The ideas move from fragile storage into something more durable. The window after you close the book matters more than the hours you spent inside it.

Read more

If you love this content (please share it), but also…

Start here > ​https://newsletter.scottdclary.com​

Check out my ​Podcast​, connect with me on ​YouTube​ / ​Twitter​, and read my ​Weekly Newsletter​

Sponsor: Huel​

I skipped lunch three times last week. Not because I wanted to—back-to-back calls, no time, and my options were: waste 30 minutes prepping, grab drive-thru garbage, or just stay hungry. By 3pm I’m making terrible decisions because my blood sugar’s crashed and I can’t focus.

​Huel Black Edition fixes this.​ 35 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals—it’s a complete meal, not a protein shake. Under $5, zero prep, and I’m not losing my afternoon to hunger brain.

New customers get 15% off with code SCOTTCLARY at ​huel.com/scott​. Minimum $75 purchase.

This Weeks Letter:

Success Story Podcast

I host a podcast which has 100 million+ downloads.

You should subscribe on ​Apple Podcasts​, ​Spotify​ or ​YouTube​.

Last Week’s Episodes

Vishal Virani - Rocket.new | Rocket 1.0: Why Vibe Solutioning Replaces Vibe Coding

Learn more about Rocket.new here.

Vishal Virani has been building tech companies for 13+ years. His latest, Rocket.new, raised $15M in seed from Accel and Salesforce Ventures in 2025, hit $4.5M ARR in its first few months, and now has crossed 1.5M users in 180 countries. The platform combines research, app building, and competitive intelligence into one workflow, what Virani calls “vibe solutioning.” Instead of just generating code faster, Rocket helps users figure out what to build and whether it’s worth building. He also breaks down why so many AI startups are burning through users and cash, and why he thinks sustainable growth beats blitz-scaling every time.

See you next week,

Scott

My Links

• Success Story (Top 10 Entrepreneur Podcast)

• 10 Minute Mindset (Top Mindset Podcast)

• Newsletter (321k Subs)

• Social Media

If you love this content (please share it), but also check out my Podcast & connect with me on YouTube / Twitter.

We turn your favorite newsletters into podcasts at 10minmindset.org

The ask changes you more than the answer does.

Vanessa Bohns, a social psychologist at Cornell, has spent fifteen years asking a simple question: when you ask someone for something, how often do they say yes?

She’s tested this across more than 14,000 interactions. Strangers asking strangers for favors, for help, for things that feel like impositions. Before each request, she has the person predict how many people will say yes. Then she sends them out to ask.

The gap between prediction and reality is staggering. People underestimate compliance by 48 percent. Nearly half. And the reason is consistent: when you’re the one asking, you focus on how easy it would be for the other person to decline. You imagine them weighing the cost, finding it too high, and saying no. It feels rational.

But you’re missing the force on the other side. Saying no to someone’s face is uncomfortable. It implies judgment. Most people, when asked for something directly, will find a way to say yes because the social cost of declining feels worse than whatever the request costs them. You know this about yourself. You do it all the time. But you forget it about other people the moment you’re the one asking.

The number you deleted

If people say yes more often than you expect, why do you keep asking for less than you want?

You’ve done this. Drafted the email with the real number, then changed it to something smaller before hitting send. Added a qualifier: “I know this might be a stretch, but...” Watered down the proposal, softened the pitch, asked for ten percent when you wanted twenty. And the reason, if you’re honest about it, had nothing to do with strategy.

The reason is that the ask is a claim. When you put the real number in the email, you’re saying “I think my work is worth this much.” When you pitch the full scope, you’re claiming a level of competence you’ll have to back up. The softened version protects you. If you ask for less and get it, you were being reasonable. If you ask for what you want and hear no, someone just evaluated your claim about yourself and rejected it.

So you pre-reject. You scale down the ask before it leaves your mouth, and the gap between what you wanted and what you asked for becomes a quiet tax on everything you build.

What the asking does to you

Here’s where most advice about bold asks stops: at the outcome. Ask bigger, get more. And that’s true as far as it goes. Bohns’s data confirms it.

But the more interesting thing happens inside the person who asks, regardless of the answer.

The first time you send the email with the real number, your hands sweat. You feel exposed. You’ve made a claim about what you deserve, and now someone else gets to weigh in on it. If they say yes, something shifts. You just learned that asking at that altitude is allowed. You filed that away. The next ask gets a little easier, a little bigger, and the altitude becomes your new baseline.

If they say no, something different happens, and it matters just as much. You survived it. Bohns found that people who got turned down reported the experience was less painful than they’d anticipated. The imagined rejection was worse than the actual one. And now you know that too. The ceiling you were afraid to touch turned out to be a few inches higher than you thought, and next time you’ll reach for it without the same hesitation.

Either way, you became someone who asks at that level. And that identity shift is the real asset, because it compounds in ways that any single yes or no can’t.

The person who asks for the reasonable thing and gets it learns nothing about themselves. The person who asks for the unreasonable thing, whether they get it or not, learns that they’re allowed to want it. And the gap between those two people, after a few years of this, looks from the outside like luck or talent or connections. It’s not. It’s the accumulated effect of asking at a different altitude, hundreds of times, and letting each ask reshape what feels normal.

The altitude gap

Case Kenny has a line: “The universe meets you at your level of audacity.” The universe rewards boldness not because of some mystical law. It rewards boldness because the bold person is often the only person who asked.

Think about any opportunity you’ve watched someone else get. A partnership, a meeting with someone important. Your first instinct is to assume they were chosen. Most of the time, they asked. They sent the cold email and raised their hand in a room where everyone else was waiting to be picked.

And they were able to do this because at some point they made their first unreasonable ask and learned that asking doesn’t break anything. The relationship survives. The other person doesn’t think less of you. The no, when it comes, is polite, and sometimes it comes with a counter-offer that’s better than the safe ask would have produced.

Your sense of what’s “too much” to ask for is miscalibrated by about 48 percent. Every time you honor that miscalibration instead of overriding it, you leave something on the table that someone less talented but more willing to ask is going to pick up.

Send the email with the real number. The answer matters less than what the asking turns you into.

Thank you for reading,

— Scott

My Links

• Success Story (Top 10 Business Podcast)

• 10 Minute Mindset (Top Self Development Podcast)

• Newsletter (321k Subs)

• Social Media