On the other hand, it's also the reason behind most of my missed deadlines ("Oh yeah I can do that in a week, no problem"), burnout ("I've got nights and weekends, I can take on this project"), and disappointing/unrealistic projections ("I don't want to slow myself down with research, I KNOW people are going to love this product").
In my previous role, I was paired up with a developer whose natural tendencies were to pessimistically look upon each new feature request like a minefield. Having someone to negate the negative aspects of my optimism was a godsend, and we had one of the most productive working relationships I've ever had. I would unfairly get a lot of the credit for my positive, can-do attitude, but I've never forgotten the benefits of having a healthy dose of skepticism on a team, nor the absolute havoc that an unchecked optimist (like myself) can cause.
Finding a dynamic like this is a treasure.
My version of it was working with someone who had an inclination to solve all problems on the "algorithmic level" so to speak. Every time we worked on a feature, no matter how big, he would start with the hard CS problems and never really leave that head space. I thought of it as a "bottom up" approach. I on the other hand always took the "top down" approach and focused most of my efforts on APIs and architecture.
In his view, if you don't correctly solve the "real problem" (the hard CS problem) then everything else will fall part. If you base your architecture on the wrong solution then your layers of abstraction won't make any sense.
In my view, you should take the naive approach with the CS problem and focus mostly on the interface and system level architecture. If the interface and architecture are a mess, your application is going to be a buggy mess everywhere else too (death by a thousand cuts).
At first working together was so painful! We argued about everything. Worse, we'd be arguing about completely different things because our points of view were so different!
As soon as we recognized our differences we became a well oiled machine. A new project came in, he focused in on the CS problem, I focused on the architecture, and we'd (usually painlessly) merge our solutions.
The balance was even useful when we worked on separate projects. I knew that if I had a very narrow complex problem then I could come to him for a brilliant solution. He knew that if he got stuck trying to design a system with lots of moving parts that I'd offer a solid robust and fault tolerant systems level solution.
Ah, I miss it.
There's a lack of skepticism in general when it comes to tooling. Every one of those points is void of information without context because they each have a pessimistic counterpart that could be equally true. "X will introduce more technical debt than the problem it solves would", "X solves too broad of a problem and will bog us down with a huge API surface area we don't need", "X, Y and Z will provide negative value and we will miss an opportunity to outskill our competition", etc.
A lot of people, even senior staff, seem to forget that their job is about weighing pros and cons, or costs and benefits. In a lot of work places, mentioning the costs is seen as pessimistic or defeatist. You can see the imbalance by looking at the kind of language that's in vogue. I have a fair sort of a repertoire for accusing someone of being too skeptical of tooling ("reinventing the wheel", "why don't we just build it in assembly?", "10,000 people starred it on GitHub for a reason"), but I find it much harder to come up with opposing examples. The ones that are used aren't as widespread, and are more used as attributes of a codebase rather than as an assessment of someone's approach ("overengineered", "npm salad", "wrong abstractions" etc).
After years someone asked why I was "so negative" and I said, I'm not negative, I'm, "planning for success."
>>mind blown<<
"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."
At work, basically, if there is a monetary value attached to the task, I have no issue. I've tried to analyze this but it seems to come down to things that I don't really HAVE to do will get pushed because I'm optimistic they will work out, as they have in the past, and if they don't then there is no real consequence. Those that are work-related have a direct consequence, less income, so they feel more critical. I'm not a developer so it's easier for me to draw a line from my work to monetary value but this may be a perspective to bring up if you are working with a similar personality type in the future.
And yeah, the world we live in is pretty fucked up in plenty of regards. But not in every regard. And while I don't advocate going full-on nihilist, there's something to be said for striving for a little balance, and embracing a little bit of that "screw it, let's just dance, drink, listen to music, fuck, do drugs, and have some FUN while we're here" mindset.
I'm reminded of a line from the Motley Crue movie, where Vince Neil says "I'm sick and tired of not having any fun!"
Life is for the living... let's have some optimism, and have some fun. We can save the manatees, fix the environment, etc., without being a bunch of miserable sodding wankers in the process.
I have the app installed, but I never use it. I think I only installed it because this one woman I was talking to was on there and wanted to connect with me on there.
Maybe I should start using it more though, if what you say is true. Or maybe I just need to curate my "friends" lists on Facebook, Twitter, etc. and cull some of the people who are posting more negative oriented stuff...
That said, Instagram with just friends and no influencers is pretty good.
Nope. I didn't even read the article.
Accepting that bad things will inevitably happen, and being able to find joy in the good things even so, is exactly what Brown is advocating.
Good. That reminds me a bit of the message from Victor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning. I endorse that viewpoint.
The thing about optimism is that if you believe there is a solution, you'll keep working until you find it. If you're pessimistic, you're more likely to give up if there solution isn't obvious. Successful people are often optimistic because it's useful.
Don't assume that everything will work out, assume that there are solutions to every problem you face. Even when there aren't solutions, searching gives far more meaning to life than complacency.
There's certainly value in stoicism, but I think optimism results in the best quality of life. Which you choose should be based on your personality and what brings you satisfaction (contentedness vs achievement).
By now many in the HN crowd have likely spotted the survivorship bias here. Sometimes optimistic people will keep working toward a solution to a problem until they find it, even if no actual solution can ever exist. Those are the optimistic failures you never hear about.
Likewise, sometimes pessimists are rightfully pessimistic about something that has no solution, and end up moving on much sooner to something better. You rarely hear about that either.
It doesn’t matter whether you are optimistic or pessimistic, what’s important is to be optimistic or pessimistic for the correct reasons.
To be fair, you hear about that exact scenario constantly on HN. It's a common topic here. I've been reading stories about it here for the better part of a decade now. Pretty much every thread that touches on success, failure and survivor bias end up with discussions covering the issue of entrepreneurial blindness due to eg over-confidence or over-optimism.
You also frequently see entire threads dedicated to the subject, spawned from articles posted by entrepreneurs that put themselves through blind optimism scenarios and then go on to warn against it. Knowing when to throw in the towel, when to stop trying to pivot, and so on, are common themes with founders. You'll run across some really good discussions on the subject here over time.
How many stories have we seen of failed startups after years of optimism? Sometimes the cost of that optimism for the founder was disturbingly high.
I have wasted multiple years trying to find solutions to software problems (e.g. when working with third party systems like browsers) that either were not solvable or that I lacked the skills to solve. I have had some wins too, but often I should have given up far earlier...
What the..‽ Show me one. Just one.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/20736/Trump-White-House-Self...
"In the president’s biography and business career, the role of positive thinking is hiding in plain sight. From childhood on, Trump worshipped in the temple of the movement’s prophet, Norman Vincent Peale: Manhattan’s Marble Collegiate Church. Indeed, Peale presided over Trump’s first wedding in 1977. Trump’s father was a die-hard adherent of Peale’s preachments, as is his daughter Ivanka, who wrote in her 2009 self-help tract, The Trump Card, that “perception is more important than reality” and you shouldn’t “go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.”"
"Peale’s midcentury self-help bible, The Power of Positive Thinking, is, at its core, a distillation of the message of the Christian faith into a series of achievement-minded axioms. “Picturize, prayerize, actualize” was Peale’s mantra, and he applied this simple formula to every facet of the believer’s life—but most especially to the sphere of material advancement, which was the surest sign of divine favor in the hermetic social world of Pealeism."
"The Power of Positive Thinking remained on the New York Times bestseller list for 186 consecutive weeks and helped launch the modern self-help industry; more than five million copies remain in print today. Peale’s gospel became the success creed for a newly corporatized and prosperous American social order. "
Seems like acc to Dr. Frankl incorrigible pessimists are better companions than incorrigible optimists.
He is talking about his companions. If we try to understand the author's perspective, he was somewhere between the spectrum of men who lost all hope and incorrigible optimists.
For someone like that, I believe the incorrigible optimists would be much more irritating. It's like, there are so many problems and instead of fighting them, the optimists don't want to acknowledge they are there.
We shall see.
Optimism combined with incorporating feedback from brutally honest people works for me.
> Stoicism
Uhm.
Note: I did not read the article.
