Lennart Nacke, PhD

The real expert skill:

Recognizing when your current approach is fighting the problem instead of solving it.

Sometimes the best next step is stepping back.

Choosing your research methodology is like defending your pizza toppings.

Qualitative? Quantitative? Mixed methods?

Pick what fits your objectives.
Then justify why it's the right choice.

(Pineapple is valid. Fight me.)

Your methods must answer your research questions.

"Your writing is hard to follow."

The idea was perfectly clear inside my head, which is unfortunately where it stayed.

People who can't distinguish correlation from causation have measurably affected my quality of life and I cannot prove which way.

Stages of writing a conference abstract:

• abstract_draft.docx
• abstract_shorter.docx
• abstract_250words.docx
• abstract_250words_ACTUALLY250.docx
• abstract_WHY_IS_THIS_253.docx
• abstract_final_I_cut_the_word_the.docx

How to give a great conference talk:

1. Know your audience
2. Structure your narrative
3. Practise delivery
4. Stand at the podium and immediately forget every word you've ever learned in any language

People think building a writing habit is:

• Waiting for sabbatical
• Clearing your schedule
• Finding 4-hour blocks

What it actually is:

• Scheduling 30 minutes daily
• Picking one location
• Setting one concrete goal

That's literally it.

You start wondering if you've lost the ability to write.

Maybe you never had it.

You haven't.

Your brain is just running six processes at once.

And it was never designed for that:
x.com/acagamic/st...

Publishing a thought leadership piece:

Cons:
• Six weeks of deep research and drafting
• Your editor removes the only sentence you were proud of
• Its impressions are fine

Pro:
• A random stranger on LinkedIn DMs you a speaking gig.

You assumed prolific writers had more protected time.

They don't.

They write sections in a different order, draft without editing, and use templates for structure.

Here's my entire system:
x.com/acagamic/st...

Academia doesn't need more people who read a lot.

It needs people who extract cues from what they read.

You forgot something in sixth grade that Warren Buffett still uses to read 500 pages a day.

And it's killing your research career:
x.com/acagamic/st...

Most academics can't focus because they never actually decided what they're doing today.

Pick one thing.

Know why it matters for your career.

Set a real deadline.

Write down the actual steps.

That's it.

You know you've found your people when you can trash their sidehustle strategy over coffee and they actually respect you more for it.

First we replaced curiosity with careerism.

Then we replaced careerism with prompts.

At least the careerists had to read their own papers...

Every hour you spend chasing likes is an hour you don't spend getting better at something that actually pays off.

Overwhelmed needs boundaries.
Embarrassed needs self-compassion.
Inadequate needs evidence review.

Generic stress needs nothing because it tells you nothing.

My favorite emotional clarity framework:

1. Name the core feeling (Sad? Mad? Scared?)
2. Move one ring out (Scared → Insecure? Rejected? Anxious?)
3. Move to the edge (Anxious → Overwhelmed? Embarrassed?)
4. Ask: What does this specific feeling need?

Concentric emotion wheel categorizing core feelings (Happy, Sad, Angry, Fearful, Surprised, Disgusted) with layered, specific related emotions.

Your team says they're frustrated with the project, but you don't really know what that looks like day to day.

A man, Tony Stark, in a tailored suit stands confidently with outstretched arms amid a dramatic explosion and rugged landscape.

AI "experts" in 2026:

6 AM: Post that AI will take your job (now)
9 AM: Ask ChatGPT to write the next post
12 PM: Launch a masterclass on prompting
3 PM: Argue hard in the comments
6 PM: Zero shipped products

Actual experts using AI:

Got the work done with Claude Code. Went home.

If I throw my latest grant proposal off the top roof of the new Engineering building, can I finally report a high Impact Factor?

Your colleagues publish more than you.

They don't have more time, more talent, or more discipline.

They have a system.

Here are the six protocols behind it:
x.com/acagamic/st...

Therefore, you keep telling yourself you'll write that book/start that podcast/build that thing,

(but mostly you just stare at your to-do list and eat crackers for dinner.)

Here's your typical academic superhero origin story:

You started a couple research side projects that nobody cited.

Your day job is grading papers and sitting in meetings about meetings.

But by 5pm your brain is mush.

Stacks of highlighted PDFs.

A Zotero library with 400+ entries.

Shelf after shelf of books with cracked spines.

Impressive library, empty mind:
x.com/acagamic/st...

You know you're a real academic when your idea of flirting is finding the weak spot in someone's thesis statement.

2. Do one to three things. Always. Doesn't matter if they're ugly or you don't want to do them. Email the person. Fill out the form. Write that paragraph.

3. Repeat until life improves.

Consistency is all you need to win.

Accountability is what you pay for.

Most expert self-help advice on the Internet is bullshit.

People selling AI as a panacea. It's not.
People faking their expertise. Until they can't.
People hating on hard-won academic knowledge.

Cool. Super helpful. That and $5.50 gets you a latte.

Want actual results?

1. Wake up.

You want me to 'just let you pick my brain' over a coffee today? The exact thing that got Socrates sentenced to death?

Most AI companies think hype is a strategy.

Post vague sh*t. Watch the engagement roll in. Rinse and repeat.

Until nobody believes you anymore.

I know I’ve achieved true expertise in my field because my answer to every question is 'it depends' and I no longer have the energy to argue with confidently wrong 22-year-olds on TikTok.