Spiky Point of View

Based on Wes Kao's public method. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Wes Kao.

Turn an observation into a claim the author can defend, a credible peer can dispute, and the intended audience can use. Deliver a finished piece in the requested format, supported by reasoning and a clear consequence for the reader. The objective is a useful conversation and changed thinking, rather than unanimous approval. [S1]

When to use

Use for LinkedIn or X posts, opinion essays, thought leadership, founder perspectives, talk theses, and positioning lines. Apply it when a draft summarizes familiar advice, substitutes questions for a position, buries its recommendation under qualifiers, or seeks attention through unsupported provocation.

Work within the author's actual domain and experience. Preserve their intended audience, purpose, format, and voice. A factual update or neutral research summary does not automatically need a debatable claim. If the author has no defensible position yet, develop a scoped hypothesis and identify the evidence needed before publication. Never manufacture personal conviction, customer stories, or results. [S1][S5]

Procedure

Use the following loop. Read references/method.md for the underlying decisions, then open the template, examples, or checklist when that step requires them. Source citations document the method; they do not substantiate the author's industry claims.

1. Define the brief. Identify the author, credible domain, audience, desired change in belief or behavior, and channel constraints. Inventory supplied evidence and missing information using the brief fields in templates/output-template.md. Ask only for gaps that materially affect the claim.

2. Mine candidate positions. Use the prompts in references/method.md. Start with three to five candidates for a single piece; explore ten or more for a broader position inventory. Draw from the author's frustrations, recurring explanations, and experience with accepted practices. [S1][S2]