For your videos to work, for them to be a good product that runs numbers on platforms, you essentially have to mogg people. I know it sounds funny and I am laughing while I am typing this, but I think it is true in a sense.
As a content creator all you have to do is mogg and the script and presentation is the source of it
like yeah you might know cash conversion cycle’s defination
but do you know it as intuitively ik it? Can you package it as sexily as I can?
nah ? get mogged 🗣️
That’s why different people have, different niches.
Not everyone can package things well for every category.
We have our little own areas of interest where we flourish.
But there are some structural constraints too.
From my own experience, the marketing or soft sciences-type people I have ever followed all had to have:
- amazing taste
- bring in a lot of examples
- and have social proof
The threshold for being impressed by them was whether they knew more than I did, had seen more than I had, and were running circles around me when it came to experience.
Basically for ‘people’ type of content, the bar for the amount and breadth of information you possess, it’s really high.
On the other hand when it comes to hard sciences or difficult things such as physics, comp sci, maths, quant finance or AI, we don’t want a lot of information. We just want the feeling that I got away with understanding this concept by looking at this lil content without burning too many brain cells.
The calculus I use when I look at hard science content is:
- It should be short.
- It should be intuitive.
- I should understand something new.
- I don’t want to learn a lot of concepts because I know it will just burn me out.
- Minimum energy and time and syllabus for maximum output.
People are not there expecting you to tell them a lot. They expect you to tell them something they can understand, and that it should be helpful or useful in a way they can use it in their own life or regurgitate it to their audience.
So arguably it is easier to make content for hard sciences than soft human stuff like psychology, marketing, or whatever. Because the barrier to entry is way lower, you don’t need a shit ton of experience. You just need to know few concepts and have the ability to explain them nicely.
To be a scientist is hard but to be a science communicator is easy.
To mogg socially is hard but to mogg intellectually is kind of easy because everyone has social experience and they keep judging you based off it. But in the hard sciences there are a lot of useful concepts people are totally oblivious to. If you can take them out of their ignorance and give them some knowledge without taking too many resources from them, they really like you for it.
In social sciences there is a scope that he might be just blabbering bullshit, but in hard sciences everything is verifiable, so you are more likely to trust the person. Because the common notion is, “Why would someone lie about something so easily verifiable?” Even if we might not verify it ourselves. But for human-type of content we try to verify everything even if it is beyond our means.
One’s truthfulness being a gradient and another’s being a binary definitely has consequences for how they are perceived.
One place where this becomes clear is how a lot of people watch technical tutorials or study videos by Indians, even with their broken accent, on YouTube. They are nowhere to be found in most soft domain content made by Indians. An ordinary Indian dude talking about marketing or psychology in his dingy room doesn’t inspire much confidence. If that same guy is teaching you how to sort an array before your exam, you’ll gladly watch it as long as he explains it very well.
If you’re a creator from a non-Western background and you want to mog in soft domains for a Western audience, you need overwhelming social proof to override the default assumption. You need to show you’ve run circles around their world. It’s possible, but the bar is higher. You need to borrow credibility by name-dropping people or brands or experiences.
In Soft sciences (marketing, psychology, business):
Credibility = density of lived experience. You are sloppy till proven authoritative.
In Hard sciences (math, physics, coding):
Credibility = compression and simplification of the complex. You are authoritative till proven sloppy.
ChatGpt’s reaction
Soft domains (people, marketing, psych):
Mog with experience density
- examples
- stories
- proof
- edge cases
Hard domains (math, AI, finance concepts):
Mog with compression
- simplicity
- intuition
- speed
- clarity
1. Soft Domains → You mog with depth of life
Marketing, psychology, business…
Here, the audience is already playing the game.
They’ve:
- talked to people
- made decisions
- been manipulated / persuaded
- tried things themselves
So they’re not easy to impress.
To mog here, you must signal:
- you’ve seen more
- you’ve survived more edge cases
- you’ve already tested what they’re guessing
That’s why what works is:
- stories
- case studies
- receipts
- specific examples
- social proof
Not because it’s “better content” — but because:
The audience is trying to verify: “Is this guy actually ahead of me?”
If they don’t feel that → you’re just another voice.
2. Hard Domains → You mog with compression
Math, AI, physics, coding…
Here, the audience is not playing the game.
They’re standing outside it.
So their problem is not:
“Is this guy more experienced than me?”
Their problem is:
“Can I even understand this without pain?”
So the mog becomes:
- “You struggled with this for hours”
- “I made you get it in 30 seconds”
That’s dominance.
And that’s why what works is:
- short explanations
- visual intuition
- one clean insight
- “oh shit, that’s it?” moments
Because:
You’re not beating them on experience — you’re beating them on clarity per unit time.
Soft domains (people, markets, psychology):
Credibility = experience density.
You mog by proving you’ve lived more edge cases than the viewer. That’s why stories, examples, receipts, and social proof matter—they’re compressed evidence of lived experience. Without them, you’re just another opinion.
Hard domains (math, code, physics, finance):
Credibility = compression efficiency.
You mog by delivering understanding faster than the viewer’s brain would have arrived at it alone. The audience isn’t testing your life experience; they’re testing whether you saved them from pain. “You suffered for hours. I gave you the ‘oh shit’ moment in 30 seconds.”