Some of the blogs out there are definitely niche blogs for this purpose – lifehacker, gizmodo, actually, most of the gawker network.  But it’s weird to think about some of those things as niches, like scanner – is writing about absurd parts of pop culture really a niche?

But then those posts are more about selling your editorial skills and spin, the way you present your points.  I know that’s true in other arenas – regardless of what i think of her point of view, I enjoy reading Maureen Dowd’s NYTimes editorials every wednesday and saturday because she says interesting things in very interesting ways.

Now I just have to figure out how to be interesting.

An aside – is there a saturation of interesting people?  How many people can the ‘public’ hold up as interesting at one time?  I assume there’s a formula that could be derived for this, xkcd style, that’s dependent on population size (singular specialty develops a society once there are more people interested in that specialty), number of geographic identities (my circumstances are different from yours), and activities.

Is there a point to quantifying this saturation level?  Also, is there a filter size (only social types with >5,000 active consuming members count)?

Things to ponder. 

I think the final, most relevant question is one that I’ll think about many times, which by pausing to contemplate I may automatically answer – am I the self-starting, own the world type that will be a successful leader at what I choose to do, or will I be more content to sheepify and join the ranks, keeping my ambition and ideas and dreams internalized?